Self-Check Moment: Detention of a reporter's spouse.

[Bonobo]

It isn't rocket science, it's a great self test to see if just MAYBE you have strayed waaaaay too far in the direction of becoming an apologist for an authoritarian state.

When a reporter's spouse is detained at an airport, it is one of those moments.

It's not too late for you. You can use this moment to say "Wait a minute" even if you have been a vociferous defender of the Administration on the issue of spying.

I can understand the impulse to defend the administration, especially when so many here on DU slam it so much. It gets your hackles up, you get defensive. I get it.

But this is truly a self-check moment.

But... I know what you're saying. "This was done in England! It has NOTHING to do with Obama's administration!"

Okay. Fine. Let me concede, for the sake of argument, that the Obama admin was NOT INVOLVED AT ALL. No phone calls were made. No winks, no node. Let's say that.

In that case, it should be VERY EASY for you to condemn this action on the part of England, right?

So, I will be waiting. Please show me that you still have SOME liberal values left and condemn this action against the spouse of a reporter that was clearly intended as intimidation to silence the free press.

I will be waiting to see some of the names I have come to be dubious of... Please prove to me that you are NOT just an unthinking robot that automatically defend any action however oppressive and antithetical to freedom as long as you feel it fits your political agenda.

[Robb]

1. Were it me, I'd not put my spouse in such a position.

But then again I've never been in direct contact with international fugitives, so perhaps I have no idea what I'd be capable of.

[Bonobo]

5. Victim blaming.

There was no suspicion of illegal activity. It was done for intimidation. The proof is that he was kept for 9 hours --until the very last limit.

It was punitive.

[KittyWampus]

9. no suspicion of illegal activity. And you know this how?

[Bonobo]

13. If there was suspicion, why not get an actual search warrant?

Why be weasel-like and do it at the airport?

Wouldn't they be more likely to find it if they searched where he was staying?

[Robb]

14. Almost certainly. But was it unexpected?

Again, I'd like to think I wouldn't put my spouse in harm's way.

[Bonobo]

15. That statement would be equally true

even if we stipulated that such behavior was a true example of authoritarianism at its worst.

Sometimes you do what you think is right even if it puts you at risk.

Maybe your spouse, if she thought you were doing the right thing, would WANT to help you, Robb.

[Robb]

19. Mmm. Probably.

Does not however change things. Mrs. Robb is not an international woman of mystery, however well-intentioned. I'd like to think I could accomplish whatever I was up to without bringing family into potentially nasty messes.

Far too many guesses still to make to assess fully, of course. What was hoped to be gained by putting his partner at risk? What was actually gained? Do all parties agree it was worth it?

[Mojorabbit]

46. If I were a reporter it would not occur to me that my husband would be detained

because of one of my stories. It should not have to be on my list of worries. That is how I am looking at it. I am almost sixty but I don't remember this sort of thing happening in the past. I may have missed some things but I don't remember this happening before.

[tblue37]

54. If things occurred as GG says they did, then GG

did not bring his family into this "nasty mess." The authorities are the ones who brought GG's partner into it. Unless they had actual evidence that GG's partner was involved in some criminal activity himself, they should have left him alone. As it stands now, this looks a lot like hostage taking--and it borders on war crime!

[msanthrope]

10. Neither would I. I've read enough LeCarre novels to know that this was a pretty

brainless idea. I mean, if you are going to play Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, you've just got to do it with a little more sense.

I bet this was all James Blond's idea....straight from his Ecuadorian Embassy lair.

[delrem]

26. So what would you do? Put her in a pumpkin shell, and keep her very well? or what?

[grasswire]

43. neither Greenwald nor Miranda are "fugitives" nt

[ljm2002]

58. Thank you!

Gad, it seems the hysteria just blinds people to some basic facts, like: reporters do get their hands on information from some very dubious characters at times, but they are not required to reveal their sources here in the US. It is a time-honored reading of the law: no prior restraint, and no requiring journalists to reveal sources, even when the information is embarrassing or even damaging to the government.

Furthermore, people seem to think that Snowden being indicted, means the journalists working on this story are now under the same umbrella, and must have broken the law and are suddenly also fugitives.

People seem all too willing to just let our laws protecting freedom of the press, slide away without so much as a whimper. Seeing so many applaud this trend, right here on DU -- now that is depressing.

[awoke_in_2003]

2. The hits keep coming. nt

[Recursion]

3. Sure makes me glad I'm not British (nt)

[cthulu2016]

4. The innocent spouse angle is irrelevant. Stipulate that Miranda was involved.

It is functionally the same as if Greenwald or Portias were detained and their electronics confiscated.

Which is the meat of the matter.

(Text is not a bomb. "Explosive revelations" is a figure of speech. Nobody is a terrorist for trying to board a plane with a power-point presentation)

[Recursion]

6. And yet another example of why broad "anti-terror" legislation is a bad idea

The legal powers given to the US and UK governments are far too broad. I don't know a single DUer who disagrees with that.

[joshcryer]

27. You'll be labeled an NSA authoritarian if you say that.

How dare anyone be critical of the UK's surveillance laws. I mean, The Guardian has tracking cookies that the UK government very likely has access to, in, very likely a PRISM like program, but who cares, right?

[Bonobo]

28. Huh? That makes no sense.

I guess you are trying to be cute or ironic in some way, but I do not understand your post one bit.

[joshcryer]

33. Some of us are against all forms of spying on individuals.

Some of us do not want corporations to have our information any more than governments.

[Bonobo]

35. Oh.

That's nice, Josh.

Ya think you could manage that while NOT sounding like you are defending govt. spying?

[joshcryer]

38. Why would you assume that?

Because I defend other DUers who are falsely slandered as defending government spying?

Why golly gee. I like defending those who are misrepresented by nasty characters.

[Mojorabbit]

48. I agree totally. nt

[dkf]

23. Worse, maybe he wouldn't get the protections of a journalist or spouse of a US citizen.

Boy he was absolutely on the line there. Greenwald must be livid.

[1awake]

7. Sir/Ma'am....

You are going to be waiting for a very long time. Personally, I think it was despicable... and a sign of things to come.

1awake

[Scootaloo]

8. It's a sign of things already here

[1awake]

11. true dat. n/t

[bhikkhu]

12. I would imagine it was suspicion that she was smuggling electronics or intel of some sort

...which would be a reasonable suspicion. But, on the other hand, I would think that could be checked pretty quickly and without much fuss. The 9 hour hold probably was just to maximize the inconvenience; hopefully they realize that kind of thing just makes people in general upset and more sympathetic to Greenwald.

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. Its interesting to realize it wasn't a she.

Greenwald is gay, it was his partner David Miranda that was withheld. This after all the noise about gay rights in Russia.

[bhikkhu]

36. I just saw that a minute ago

Good for them. Western culture has matured quite a bit since I was young.

[ljm2002]

59. One thing can be counted on...

...any sensitive materials on any of those devices would have been encrypted. Poitras in particular is known for being relentless about security, and she would have ensured that any materials she was supplying were strongly encrypted.

I don't know what the laws are in England w.r.t. protections for journalists. But this is clearly an intimidation tactic. They already had his devices; why "question" him for 9 hours? The obvious answer: intimidation.

[UTUSN]

16. Er, how did *I* become "an apologist for an authoritarian state" ?!1

* Posit #1 - somebody/"journalist'/whoever creates a worldwide sensationalist story and
* Posit #2 - tells everybody in the whole wide world WHO is everybody involved with him

*Posit #3 - all comings and goings of everybody are noted worldwide

* Posit #4 - and this somebody/"journalist" decides and whines that anybody connected with him should traipse around the world, in between/among all members of his friends, colleagues, collaborators, chums --------without ANY kind of questioning at ports of call in transit nations anywhere?!1

[Bonobo]

18. You are very clear.

You think it is appropriate for the spouse of someone who says objectionable things to be intimidated.

Gotcha.

And errrr, yeah, that DOES make you an apologist for the authoritarian state.

[UTUSN]

21. It ain't a spouse issue, it ain't a defending gov't issue. We can't talk, we know. n/t

[joshcryer]

30. Posting probable outcomes != authoritarian state apologia.

Authoritarian state apologia is supporting a for-profit corporate media machine that sensationalizes a story to get hits, while also tracking users, in a state with laws which allow the government to track individuals at whim.

[Bonobo]

31. You seem confused and off-point today. Are you feeling okay?

Are you really equating cookies with state spying?

[joshcryer]

37. I'm saying the state can use the data to spy on you.

Cookies themselves are typically unencrypted. They would fall into any metadata category.

I'm saying that the UK is one of the worlds biggest surveillance state.

I'm saying that the people deflecting from any kind of data being captured from accessing The Guardian aren't getting the bigger picture.

It's all a show. It's Active measures times a thousand.

[Bonobo]

39. Getting Metadata on all of us, yup.

We are all known. Out habits, our purchases and our voting behavior.

It is one of the reasons I feel that not voting (when one is expected to vote) is itself a vote despite the argument that it is not.

In other words, JoshCryer has been ticked off, for example, as a certain Dem voter. If it became clear that he didn't vote during an election, a vacuum is created in which his vote will be sought for.

On the other hand, reliably voting under any circumstances means that there is no need to court that vote.

We have all been sorted and counted. We need to shake it up.

[joshcryer]

55. My goal is only to delay the decline.

I don't think it's possible to stop or reverse it.

[Egnever]

20. Please prove to me that you are NOT just an unthinking robot that automatically defend any action

Yea cause someone with potential access to to stolen classified documents should never be questioned cause they are someones spouse boyfriend whatever...

Do you hold that feeling for all criminals or just people who deal in stolen government documents?


Strawmen are fun!

[dkf]

24. Lol...these docs are digital. Really they can't be "returned".

[99Forever]

22. When the only tool an authoritarian state has...

... is a hammer, everyone is a nail. Spouses, significant others, children, pets, friends, and relatives, it doesn't matter. ALL are subject to their ass-holey-ness.

Authoritarian have no moral compass or integrity.

ANYONE who thinks (or pretends to think) that the American top administration didn't know about and push this, are idiots or liars.

[pnwmom]

25. As I've said before on other threads, Britain has a long history of misuse of terrorism laws.

Think of how they've gone after people they think might be involved with the IRA. That was wrong and this was wrong, too.

There is no need to think that the US was behind this. Britain has its own highly developed surveillance state and I'm sure they're concerned about what's in the thousands of documents Snowden stole, and how their citizens might react to any revelations that involved Britain.

[Rex]

29. Agree completely.

They want to know what intel is on those thumb drives as bad as the US wants to know.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Just how far gone are you that this is the only issue you ever think about?

There are all kinds of far gone. See ya round the bend.

[Bonobo]

34. It is not, by any means, the only issue I think about.

Bizarre projection would be my best guess for why you jumped to that conclusion.

[BeyondGeography]

40. Riiiight

For the record, unless you count one inconvenienced traveler and Edward Snowden's future, this issue has yet to produce a victim. As such, I find it the biggest waste of time that has ever consumed this board, which is saying something.

[Bonobo]

42. Plenty of victims. Consider this:

http://www.inquisitr.com/888929/dea-using-nsa-records-in-investigations/

According to a Reuters report, a secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration group is sharing its findings with various authorities nationwide. The information is being shared in hopes of building criminal cases against American citizens. The Special Operations Division, or SOD, funneled information to the DEA. The DEA then had to do what was called “parallel construction” Parallel construction basically means that the DEA had to come up with an alternate story on how it got the information from the SOD, whose information is classified.


An agent spoke with Reuters and explained in more detail. “You’d be told only ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle’. Then we would alert state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle and have a drug dog search it.” After an arrest was made, agents could then act as if the traffic stop was where their investigation began. This raises questions on the legality of evidence gathered in such a way. Parallel construction violates pretrial discovery rules by hiding evidence that may help criminal defendants.

Lawyers, prosecutors and legal scholars are up in arms with the latest NSA revelations. The gist of their argument is that cases built with parallel construction are unconstitutional. New Jersey defense lawyer Lawrence Lustberg called the practice “blatantly unconstitutional” according to Reuters. A Washington Post survey shows that most U.S. citizens support the work of the NSA when the words “terrorism” or “courts” appear in the question. Conversely, when there are no ties to terrorism, there is less support for these NSA actions.

Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who served as a federal judge for 17 years, told RT.com she thinks that these revelations are more troubling than the wiretap revelations by Edward Snowden. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations.” The SOD was formed in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels.

[BeyondGeography]

47. Far more innocent people have been seriously abused by local police departments

than will ever be harmed by the NSA. To take just one example, the horror story of civil forfeiture scams, e.g., chronicled here in the New Yorker recently:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

Everyone should read that.

And then there are the Republicans, who are always a threat to my potentially dignified old age.

Lots of concerns; this really doesn't rate with me or with most people (for once, I'm in the majority). Mostly, I'd like to stop giving blank checks to private contractors and would appreciate it if the President took a stand against any purposeless collection of private information and bureaucratic empire building. Beyond that, I'm more hopeful that a Democrat, particularly Barack Obama, will mediate this issue more responsibly than any Republican successor, so I would appreciate it if, at some point, the bulk of the energy here gets directed at the appropriate targets.

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. And this, after someone (AHEM) detained Bolivia's President to look for Snowden.

Bolivian president's jet rerouted amid suspicions Edward Snowden on board
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-bolivia-plane-vienna

"Bolivia reacted with fury after a plane carrying the country's president home from Russia was diverted to Vienna amid suspicions that it was carrying the surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden."

We are WAY down the rabbit hole.

[cascadiance]

44. WE NEED NEW FRANK CHURCH COMMITTEE HEARINGS NNOOWW!!!!

We need to have someone with the power to ARREST and PROSECUTE these CRIMINALS for violating our laws and putting this nation at risk. We may be seeing some Benedict Arnold moments coming up for some of these bastards soon!

[geek tragedy]

45. You realize London is in a foreign country, right? nt

[cascadiance]

49. And you realize also that it would be absolutely STUPID for London to do this on their own too!

WHY would they do this without criminal entities putting pressure on them to do it from this country?

Just because The Bolivian plane incident took place overseas... Just because they went after Greenwald's partner in London...

Just because Obama was stupid enough to say he wasn't meeting Putin over this incident and not a far more popular stance at contending Russia's handling of gay visitors to their winter olympic games...

None of those of course mean that there is any kind of effort from our government (or those in the shadow government hidden behind it) aren't trying to hide something that should be investigated does it?

[geek tragedy]

53. It was stupid of the Brits to do this, period.

Ask any Brit--their government is more than able to do really stupid things on its own.

[cascadiance]

60. And France and Spain were also stupid too?.... Hmm Oh Wait! Isn't there a pattern here?...

Do this many countries do "stupid things" on their own to go after those that only are wanted by authorities in America?

[geek tragedy]

61. Greenwald is not 'wanted' by the US.

The Brits could have just figured he'd have something juicy on his electronic drives and decided to have a look-see.

[cascadiance]

62. Kind of like the Bolivian president wasn't "wanted" but also wasn't allowed to have his plane land..

... in other countries in Europe. They just did it "because they wanted to."

[Recursion]

63. Wow, that lie really took root, didn't it?

but also wasn't allowed to have his plane land in other countries in Europe.

And all the retractions showing that story turned out to be bullshit didn't register with you; just the breathless front page (wrong) stories from the night of. Funny how that works.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Why was this dude detained at all?

[AnalystInParadise]

51. A-freaking-men

Rec'd

[blkmusclmachine]

56. Burgeoning POLICE STATE ...

[JoeyT]

57. I wouldn't hold my breath.

They *have* to defend this. If they condemn it and it turns out it was done on Obama's urging, there's no way they can walk it back. They have no choice but to defend it, and so far the defenses seem to be primarily victim blaming.