Is Glenn Greenwald's journalism now viewed as a 'terrorist' occupation?

[marmar]

Is Glenn Greenwald's journalism now viewed as a 'terrorist' occupation?
David Miranda's detention shows that being the partner of the man who interviewed the NSA whistleblower is enough to see you treated like a terrorist

Simon Jenkins
theguardian.com, Monday 19 August 2013 04.48 EDT


The detention at Heathrow on Sunday of the Brazilian David Miranda is the sort of treatment western politicians love to deplore in Putin's Russia or Ahmadinejad's Iran. His "offence" under the 2000 Terrorism Act was apparently to be the partner of a journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who had reported for the Guardian on material released by the American whistleblower, Edward Snowden. We must assume the Americans asked the British government to nab him, shake him down and take his personal effects.

Miranda's phone and laptop were confiscated and he was held incommunicado, without access to friends or lawyer, for the maximum nine hours allowed under law. It is the airport equivalent of smashing into someone's flat, rifling through their drawers and stealing papers and documents. It is simple harassment and intimidation.

Greenwald himself is not known to have committed any offence, unless journalism is now a "terrorist" occupation in the eyes of British and American politicians. As for Miranda, his only offence seems to have been to be part of his family. Harassing the family of those who have upset authority is the most obscene form of state terrorism.

Last month, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, airily excused the apparently illegal hoovering of internet traffic by British and American spies on the grounds that "the innocent have nothing to fear," the motto of police states down the ages. Hague's apologists explained that he was a nice chap really, but that relations with America trumped every libertarian card. ................................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-journalism-david-miranda-detention

[msanthrope]

1. Oh, good...another Greenwald thread! nt

[marmar]

3. Which naturally you were forced to click on, right?

[msanthrope]

4. No--I enjoy these threads!! The longer ones are harder to read on my phone. nt

[one_voice]

18. With an article...

written for The Guardian. Which of course, has no reason to keep rolling out the stories/articles.

[msanthrope]

19. You can't say he isn't a job creator. nt

[snooper2]

2. No, just regular criminal activity

Haven't these guys ever heard of FedEx?

[msanthrope]

5. You'd think Greenwald would have read more LeCarre novels before becoming a spymaker. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. the mere fact that he involved his partner in such a serious crime speaks volumes

about his true motivations doesn't it? If he loves his country the way he "loves" his partner.....

[Luminous Animal]

8. Greenwald didn't commit a crime and his partner is not a suspected terrorist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. and you know this because?

was he charged with a crime? He did have some thumb drives they suspect are stolen govt documents...I'd say that calls for detainment...wouldn't you? Not everyone who is detained is detained because they are already a criminal right?

[Luminous Animal]

15. Would you advocate for the Washington Posts offices be raided? They have some of the same material.

for the Washington Posts offices be raided? The have some of the same material.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. If they have a search warrant....yes I would....

but then again....the Washington Post office is not in the British Jurisdiction that I recall.
and how would you know what is or isn't in those offices....do you have some credible evidence to that effect??

[Luminous Animal]

23. Youi would have advocated the same for The Pentagon Papers?

Barton Gellman of the WaPO has written tow articles on the NSA using the same source docs that Greenwald and the Guardian have.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. seems to me Gellman is waaay smarter than GG is!

Why do you think Deep throat stayed undercover for so long? Snowden and Greenwald wanted to be the face of this investigation....they got their wish.

[Luminous Animal]

28. This doesn't even make sense. Gellman's info is safe because he doesn't do interviews?

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. back then?

[Dragonfli]

9. The serious crime of journalism? You really believe the first amendment is a crime and not a right?

I did not know that reporting evidence submitted by a whistleblower was a crime, in fact, I know it is only considered a crime under the tenure of a dictatorship or some other authoritarian regime..

In fact, if I remember correctly such reporting was well established as part of a journalists first amendment rights back when they tried to criminalize journalism during the releasing of the Pentagon Papers.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pentagon+Papers+case

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. A crime is a crime...

If I had the code to the nuclear weapons and I gave it to journalists....would that be a crime in your book?

You know it is still illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. All is not protected speech!

[Dragonfli]

30. You claim he has codes for nuclear weapons? There was no crime save in your fevered and frightened

imagination.

Did you even read the link I posted? Journalism is not a crime. SEE THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
I repeat, printing facts regarding government abuse supplied by a whistleblower is not illegal.

Your launch code conspiracy theories aside ....

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. You don't know that at all do you?

If I print the "facts" that are the nuclear launch codes....would that be a criminal act or "journalism"?

Whether you believe a crime was committed aside....

[Dragonfli]

33. Nuclear launch codes are not government abuses, you should at least pretend to know that. Also the

only person that could leak them would be Obama. A president giving access to his nuclear arms to be used by another would not be journalism, it would be an arms deal.

Now back to the actual topic of a journalist printing the illegal activities and government overreach of officials supplied to that journalist by a whistleblower. It was settled quite some time ago and is not at all illegal but rather was cited specifically as being legal under the first amendment after they tried AND FAILED to criminalize the many news outlets that printed them.

Ignorance is not a state of grace and law is not just a whim or your personal opinion. This question has been answered before and you are stomping your feet because you disagree with the outcome and the effect the Pentagon Papers had on what you are sure is your more expert opinion on the release of them.

Learn the material please, you are boring and more than a little silly.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. but that has YET to be proven....and no feet stomping here...

your "beliefs" don't count....we are a nation of laws...if you break the law...even for the right reasons...thats no excuse. And my point was...not everything is "journalism" just because YOU think it is...

[HooptieWagon]

7. Brave New World.

Where Big Bro issues journalism licenses... pro-govt propagandists get a pass. journalists who question are detained and prosecuted under varous "national security" statutes.
No matter who started it, Obama has vastly expanded it, and now owns it. It looks to be his legacy.

[Hydra]

11. This has been brewing in the background

Manning's trial had several instances of non-Manning related groundwork for the purpose of making leakers traitors(aiding the enemy) and journalist groups(Wikileaks at the time) into terrorist organizations.

Luckily both avenues failed spectacularly, but they'll keep trying until they get it. Proof? The propagandists here calling Assange an "Anarchist Hacker" and using the same label for Wikileaks.

The goal? Total information control. We won't see anything they don't approve of, and if we do, it will be illegal for us to see/possess it.

[KittyWampus]

12. Interfering with agencies tasked w/fighting terrorism by stealing their classified documents MAY

cause such laws to come into play.

[sabrina 1]

13. Yes, but this is not new since the Bush gang started attacking and even trying to kill journalists.

What are they hiding that they are so afraid of the people knowing?

And Feinstein's latest attempt to legislate what they consider a journalist to be, shows how desperate they are to make their Corporate Media the only 'legal' journalists that people have access to.

The minute Greenwald went against the Wall ST, they were after him. The HB Gary emails prove that.

[woo me with science]

14. We are witnessing nothing less than the murder of the First Amendment

and the criminalization of journalism. We are relentlessly assaulted with propaganda attempting to normalize behavior toward journalists that shouldn't even be in the realm of acceptability in free nations.

The drumbeat of outrageous propaganda on this is horrifying and should enrage every single American.

[msanthrope]

20. The First amendment was murdered in Heathrow? nt

[Recursion]

24. Shhh

You'll interrupt the self-congratulatory end-of-the-world-and-i'm-the-last-free-man posing.

[msanthrope]

27. I worry what would happen to some here if it was revealed to them that no--the NSA

really, really isn't interested in them....

[Catherina]

16. The hysteria of the 'war on terror' is now corrupting every area of democratic government

The hysteria of the "war on terror" is now corrupting every area of democratic government. It extends from the arbitrary selection of drone targets to the quasi-torture of suspects, the intrusion on personal data and the harassing of journalists' families. The disregard of statutory oversight – in Britain's case pathetically inadequate – is giving western governments many of the characteristics of the enemies they profess to oppose.

[KoKo]

32. So True! We are Obsessed with CNN Type "Good Guys" vs "Bad Guys" and!

"Good Actors vs. Bad Actors" RHETORIC from the MIC...that we Accept these Juvenile Terms from "MIC BAD ACTORS" to report to CNN/MSNBC/FAUX NEWS and the NETWORKS their THINK TANK VIEW OF "The World...and THEiR World ..as THEY (MIC) for PROFIT...see it all...

And they have SO MUCH BILLIONS INVESTED...in their Second and Third Homes ...WHO Could Complain ...if YOU are the ENTITLED.

[geek tragedy]

17. "we must assume"

Sure, if you're a complete hack that's what you do.

Also, under the UK terrorism law, it's possible to charge just about anyone with terrorism.

[Recursion]

26. Under UK law having a bus schedule is terrorism

It's a bad law. But that doesn't make it stop being a law.