Detaining Miranda under the Terrorism Act is like arresting a pot smoker for murder.

[last1standing]

Even if we find out he had a thumb drive on his person.

Even if we find out he had a thumb drive on his person that held documents.

Even if we find out he had a thumb drive on his person that held documents pertaining to Snowden.

Even if we find out he had a thumb drive on his person that held documents pertaining to Snowden that were classified.

Even if we find out he had a thumb drive on his person that actually held Snowden, himself.

It doesn't matter how many times we hear that Miranda "ABSOLUTELY" had classified documents on his person, he was never suspected of being a terrorist and there was no reason to detain him as one.

How many times will the countries of Europe be dragged into this personal vendetta only to find egg smeared on their faces?

[Recursion]

1. Actually if you read the law it's entirely within the scope of the statute

Which is why it's such a bad law.

[last1standing]

2. The police can stop and search anyone regardless of suspicion.

That doesn't present a reason to detain them for nine hours under the Act. It now looks like MP Michael Vas, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, is saying the same thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/19/detention-david-miranda-keith-vaz-glenn-greenwald?CMP=twt_fd

But yes, it is an incredibly bad law on the level of the Patriot Act.

[longship]

3. Horrible hyperbolic analogy.

With that said, I am very uncomfortable with this. But I am also conflicted about how Greenwald has yet again made this about him instead of the act itself.

Sometimes ego gets in the way of the message. I have no love and no overt animosity towards Greenwald. But Damn! He seems to be a bit of a Prima Donna.

[last1standing]

4. LOL! You praised one of my threads this morning then Damned this one.

I honestly like that you say what you think.

And it is a horrible hyperbolic analogy but I think it makes the point. What does alleged smuggling have to do with terrorism any more than smoking pot is tied with committing murder? If the British government wanted to detain Miranda or search him, why use a law supposedly designed to deter terrorism instead of existing laws that deter smuggling?

If Miranda actually did have classified documents on his person and the government had reason to believe such, then I'm not against them searching him. I'm against bending laws meant to stop atrocities to intimidate and bully individuals and that's what appears to have happened at first blush.

[longship]

5. I didn't damn your post, only the horrible (IMHO) analogy.

Like much of the NSA/Snowden/Greenwald/Assange issue, it is very, very complex. I try to stay out of the corners on it because it is has become such an apparently derisive issue here. I prefer not to throw gasoline on a fire.

Generally, I like your posts -- even when I don't agree with them. Please proceed.

[last1standing]

6. It's all good.

I just thought it was funny to see the two comments so close together.

I believe the problem with the NSA situation is that many want a monster to hate who doesn't actually exist. Snowden, Obama, Greenwald, Manning and so many others are human beings with their own motivations and beliefs. None of them is a hero and none is a villain, yet too many here want to dehumanize them with insults and smears as a way of attacking those who support some of their actions/beliefs.

Personally, I think if we could get personalities taken out of the equation we'd see much more agreement on this issue.

[longship]

7. Indeed! That's my opinion as well.

I despise the snooping. There needs to be oversight and checks and balances which our government seems to be reticent to do.

This is a cultural effect, bred by decades of rhetoric and argument by people who are not looking after our interests, let alone those of our Constitution.

I choose not to make this a partisan issue although it is inevitably political. Unfortunately the USA is caught up with ever present bipartisan thinking -- the two party system which pervades all political thought here. So one inevitably has to filter ones position through that framework. It is a sad reality here.

As a socialist, I have sympathy for those who are disappointed with President Obama. I am, too. But any alternative under our current system would be far, far worse.

Rather than scream at reality I prefer to offer solutions which have a plausible ability to work within the system we have, and holds out for future change. We could learn by history. The Republican Party didn't get the way it is today overnight. Neither did the Democratic Party. It is going to take a rather grand effort to change things. It took the Republicans decades to do it. If we want to do the same, it may take years.

My advise is for people to run for precinct delegate and rebuild the party from bottom up. That's what the Republican loonies we see today did beginning in the late 70's, early 80's.

It's a long slog. That's why I have little patience for professed Democrats here who seem to only want to scream about the way things are going yet don't see that there might be a solution.

We are not organized. That's the problem.

[Bragi]

8. He should have remained silent on this?

I'm trying to understand your point.

Was he supposed to remain silent when the UK police detained his partner, just to show that this wasn't about him?

Do you think the UK police action wasn't really about him, not about his partner?

I can understand why the surveillance state PR apparatus has to criticize everything he does, I just don't understand why so many people here seem to unquestioningly mimic the surveillance state's PR apparatus in their postings.

[longship]

9. Well, maybe it's nuance.

Just tossing out a hypothesis. Greenwald seems to like to take front stage. I don't blame him for doing so; he has been part of an important revelation (even though we've known about much of this for years).

There are those who complain that this is about the spying, not about the personalities. I have some sympathy for that argument as long as those personalities remain true to the facts.

The problem is that I do not believe that the reportage on this has been very accurate. Prominently is the conflation of exactly what is being done by NSA. By default, it's secret. So people get to make up any shit they want to get a political point across, or as an excuse to label an opponent with some ad hominem attack.

That's bullshit. And there has been far too much of that going on here since this affair hit the headlines.

I only want to hear what speaks to the facts we know. That's already bad enough.

And if Greenwald (or Snowden, for that matter) is making shit up, or conflating the facts, that becomes a very big issue in this.

And no! I do not support what is happening. I just want the facts without spin by anybody, especially Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange who are at the center of this damned affair.

Understand. That's why many of us have a jaundiced eye pointed at these guys.