General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's with the inane "Miranda was carrying data authorities wanted to read" argument?
Of course he was.
So fucking what?
I understand that talking points are written to appeal to idiots, but the assumption that everyone else is an idiot to be propagandized is a rather hostile world-view.
It is beyond dispute that Greenwald has all sorts of stuff authorities would like to read.
Right?
So go raid the Guardian offices and his home if it's so fucking obvious that government curiosity is the over-arching consideration.
That's really the argument being made, so at least have the guts to make it.
(Remember the whole "Of course Russia and China have all the data Snowden had on laptops" thing? My recollection is that the argument was predicated on an assumption that Russia and China were evil, and thus would have secured that information by force, whether electronic of manual. I agree that Russia and China are not the good guys, but it is kind of comical that "the good guys" just grab you and go through your laptops.)
And regarding the scary "Paid courier of Stolen Government Documents" thing... who among us can forget the round-up and detention of paper boys back the the NYT published the Pentagon Papers. Each and every tyke riding his bicycle laden with data from stolen government documents, and paid for his seditious efforts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)Yeah, get your fucking warrants and go do your searches!
DURec
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)you've got.
Because that's totally the way the world is supposed to work now.
Apparently.
Celefin
(532 posts)You may have some documents someone in government would like to have a look at because they are certain the docs will embarass them and there is a chance they might be illegal?
Sorry, no basic rights for you.
Easy, really. No warrants, no nothing.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023489324
It is beyond dispute that Greenwald has all sorts of stuff authorities would like to read.
Right?
So go raid the Guardian offices and his home if it's so fucking obvious that government curiosity is the over-arching consideration.
You're prosposing that?
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)anyone know?
MADem
(135,425 posts)If someone mails you drugs, do you punish the UPS man for not knowing what is in the package?
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)I thought it was alleged to be NSA thefts
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)and get back to us.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that they'd probably find a way to ascertain if he swallowed a thumb drive.
If that's what your comment is supposed to suggest.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If that's the comparison you want to make it wouldn't be with a UPS employee but someone who knowingly is carrying the drugs.
However, Miranda was detained under the terror law and I haven't heard anything about the GCHQ thinking Miranda is a terrorist.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)But give us a journalist or whistleblower and... Criminals! Immoral!
And if you really didn't get the point the poster was making you're either none too bright or being deliberately dishonest.
No, he's not proposing that. Is that all you've got?
Well said, Hissyspit.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)One does not have to be exclusive of the other.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)an accomplice to this crime?
About this claim of 'employment' which seems to be exclusively your own...who do you claim employs him? In what way was he compensated for what you claim was his employment?
Where is your evidence?
struggle4progress
(118,273 posts)into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0
struggle4progress
(118,273 posts)than the general standard within a country. A suspected smuggler cannot expect the authorities to get a warrant before searching luggage at the airport
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)This was an assault on the freedom of the press enabled by nightmarish "anti-terrorism" laws, and you're defending it because GG is a libertarian and embarrassed Obama.
How the hell do you look in the mirror and somehow manage to call yourself a progressive?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's not going to help his case, and Greenwald's credibility took a hit.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)He was being paid by a journalist to transfer source material from another journalist.
I said this before, when you start finding yourself at odds with just about every reputable civil rights and press freedom organization in the world, it may be time to realize you're on the wrong side of history.
lark
(23,083 posts)So now he's at minus credibility, or did you just mis-speak?
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)It's the icky, ugly, nasty truth that is sitting before you in all of it's naked, warty glory.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Employed by whom?
Your statement is just baseless speculation just like the bulk of your posts.
If that is your opinion, that is totally fine.
But, don't try to cloak your opinion as fact.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Miranda was carrying journalist's source material.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But, I think maybe you were responding to the wrong post.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)We do not know what MIranda was carrying.
The NYT will not attribute that sentence to Greenwald. And you have swallowed it and are repeating it.
All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.
That is the reporter's assumption, since he will not attribute that statement to Greenwald.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We have a ring of land 100 miles inward, where they can grab any of your electronics in the US...from border crossings and sea crossings.
lark
(23,083 posts)OMG, guess we were lucky that we didn't have our laptops stolen when we returned from Europe a few years ago. Looks like people who live in my state are so screwed, but then, that's been true for a while in several ways.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)That Orange represents several millions of people. Are they going to post signs beside the roads to warn people when they enter the Orange Zone? Or just surprise us.
Will they eventually establish check points to check for any illegal information you might be carrying?
I used to live within 60 miles of that Orange and had work related occasions to enter the Orange - with computers and stuff.
Land of the Free, my ass.
Marr
(20,317 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)That Orange Zone would not exist in a free country.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and then also accuse THEM of having a "hostile world-view"
The fact that Miranda was seemingly acting as a courier is a DIRECT contradiction to the previous claim that Miranda was detained as an attempt to intimidate Greenwald.
If, in my weltanschauung, I accept that my government has a right to keep some things secret, even from me (who I happen to trust (to say nothing of the general public which contains many people I do NOT trust)), then I also accept that they have the right, if not the duty, to take some steps to CONTINUE to keep those things secret.
In my world view, neither Greenwald, nor the Guardian, have some sort of absolute right to disseminate those secrets.
If you want to get me to change my world-view, I would suggest that it is not very smart to begin by calling me an idiot.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I did not call anyone an idiot in the OP.
I inferred that the target audience for some disingenuous arguments is a theoretical pool of idiots.
How you made the leap from that to me calling you an idiot is mysterious.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)You certainly were calling SOME people idiots. Perhaps a large group of somebodies who do not share your world-view. People who bought into a talking point, hook, line and sinker.
That could easily include me, or people that I call friends.
I have this odd tendency to want to defend those three people. (Me, that is, and my two best friends in the world - myself, and I).
NealK
(1,862 posts)Why did you jump to the conclusion that you were being targeted? Are you feeling insecure about your intellectual abilities?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)it could be the fact that I feel that the fact that Miranda was carrying data is a valid point. Wouldn't THAT, quite logically, make me a target?
Response to hfojvt (Reply #117)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
NealK
(1,862 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but that is not everything that I think.
To really get that, you need to order the ten volume DVD set which is available for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling and sales tax.
So far though, sales are kinda slow, although Lloyd Braun says he has sold a few.
I am not saying that the author had me in mind when he/she wrote the OP, although life size posters are available that will allow my many fans to remember me as they write. Those also come in a dartboard version which was VERY popular last Christmas. So much so, that the price has gone up to $29.95, but three metal darts are included with that.
Point is, I don't even like people I agree with to make the argument that "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot."
You wanna argue against a position or statement, even argue that the statement is idiotic, that is one thing. But save the personal attacks for the dartboard, please.
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)If, in my weltanschauung, I accept that my government has a right to keep some things secret, even from me (who I happen to trust (to say nothing of the general public which contains many people I do NOT trust)), then I also accept that they have the right, if not the duty, to take some steps to CONTINUE to keep those things secret. ///////////////////
so where can we find that statement in the bill of rights?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That doesn't automatically make you one.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And neither does the government have some sort of absolute right to seize property and detain people. Especially using bullshit terror laws.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)yet some seem to be asserting an absolute right for Greenwald, or for anybody who styles him/herself as a journalist.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"First Amendment balancing" from the "Oxford Companion to SCOTUS"
"Nothwithstanding the specific guarantees of the First Amendment and, by implication, that of the 14th, the quintet of rights enumerated in its language are NOT regarded as ABSOLUTE, despite Justice Hugo Black's ardent advocacy of such an approach....Unless one rejects utterly any regulatory governmental authority, First Amendment balancing, by whatever name, is an obvious necessity." p. 347
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)speech but not the content based on politics. The problem here is that with its many secrecy laws, all premised on an every larger number of threats from various sources, the government is abridging speech based on its content -- anything that the government on its whim decides to stamp as secret.
The government is not supposed to have secrets like this surveillance program that we don't know about. The surveillance program is political. It affects our lives and our fundamental rights, and we have a right to know about it.
The Bill of Rights provides a means for the government to obtain access to our personal information. They should use that. They can get pen registers in specific cases. They can ask us for our personal information when they conduct a census. They can obtain information on our finances in order to collect taxes. They can investigate crimes and the people involved in them whether victims or perpetrators. But they should not be secretly obtaining broadly worded warrants that just suck up all our metadata and that enable them to get pretty much anything out of our electronic communications that they wish.
What do you think Justice John Roberts thinks about the fact that they can obtain all of his metadata. It's probably pretty boring, but still. Nobody likes having somebody else read their mail.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)He's a dickhead who shouldn't even be on the Court as far as I am concerned. I probably disagree with most of what he thinks.
To figure out exactly where the lines are, is a very complicated study. I probably do not have any firm ideas on that. My point is simply that there ARE limits and I believe there SHOULD be limits (to what the press can print).
In some way, the question is "who do you trust?" to look after your/our interests. Or who do I trust?
For myself, I see no reason at this point
to trust Snowden, or
to trust Greenwald
but at the same time
I do not trust Obama either.
But I do NOT have a general distrust or hatred of "the government" or "the police".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In the First Amendment "free" means free, pretty much, at least as far as political speech is concerned.
The government is trying to circumvent the First Amendment curb on its ability to stop speech it doesn't like with the national security meme. It will work for a while, and then a court will turn this around and interpreted the meaning of not abridging speech or the press for what it does very clearly mean.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)which has not been true in our history.
And really? The government is curbing political speech? Whose? The tea party's with their IRS abuse?
So it would be a bad thing then, if the government took Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am not falling back on absolutism. I'm just talking about past Supreme Court decisions.
In R. A. V., we held that a local ordinance that banned certain symbolic conduct, including cross burning, when done with the knowledge that such conduct would “ ‘arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender’ ” was unconstitutional. Id., at 380 (quoting the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code §292.02 (1990)). We held that the ordinance did not pass constitutional muster because it discriminated on the basis of content by targeting only those individuals who “provoke violence” on a basis specified in the law. 505 U.S., at 391. The ordinance did not cover “[t]hose who wish to use ‘fighting words’ in connection with other ideas–to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality.” Ibid. This content-based discrimination was unconstitutional because it allowed the city “to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.” Ibid.
We did not hold in R. A. V. that the First Amendment prohibits all forms of content-based discrimination within a proscribable area of speech. Rather, we specifically stated that some types of content discrimination did not violate the First Amendment:
“When the basis for the content discrimination consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech at issue is proscribable, no significant danger of idea or viewpoint discrimination exists. Such a reason, having been adjudged neutral enough to support exclusion of the entire class of speech from First Amendment protection, is also neutral enough to form the basis of distinction within the class.” Id., at 388.
Indeed, we noted that it would be constitutional to ban only a particular type of threat: “[T]he Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President … since the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment … have special force when applied to the person of the President.” Ibid. And a State may “choose to prohibit only that obscenity which is the most patently offensive in its prurience–i.e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). Consequently, while the holding of R. A. V. does not permit a State to ban only obscenity based on “offensive political messages,” ibid., or “only those threats against the President that mention his policy on aid to inner cities,” ibid., the First Amendment permits content discrimination “based on the very reasons why the particular class of speech at issue … is proscribable,” id., at 393.
. . . .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZO.html
Generally, the courts don't second-guess the administration on national security issues, but when it comes to freedom of the press, the court could come down in favor of the First Amendment. I should hope so. The government is classifying more and more information that voters need to have when they go to the polls.
The lack of informed voters is a big problem in the US. When we vote we take responsibility not just for our country, but for the biggest military force in the world, the dominant force in the world. We need to be fully informed about what we are voting for and against.
When the government places so much information out of our reach, beyond our knowledge, we cannot vote in an informed way. That is a serious problem in the world today. Our national security bureaucracy is way out of control.
If you haven't already done so, take the time to watch this video:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017139372
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)An imminent threat of violence is one of the things that can be barred. The lines are carefully drawn to permit as broad a range of speech in terms of political content as possible.
The First Amendment is our most valuable protection. If we were not protected by the First Amendment (or something assuring freedom of speech as nearly all encompassing as the First Amendment), DU could not exist.
We'd all be sitting either in prison or dumb with our fingers behind our backs in our chairs watching the "don't talk back" TV.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Who knew?
The Oxford Companion concludes that legislatures then found other ways to ban hate speech.
Meaning that even after RAV it still was not a free-for-all.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Scalia wrote the decision in R.A.V.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)you are peddling, now.
Response to Aerows (Reply #147)
bvar22 This message was self-deleted by its author.
You are absolutely correct, bvar22, and it was a well executed point, too.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)against action by the Government. I seem to recall it's in some kind of document, the name of which is escaping me but I'm sure I'll remember it soon - was it the Articles of Independence? The Declaration of Confederation? No, those aren't right...
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)before the word "legal"
"First Amendment balancing" from the "Oxford Companion to SCOTUS"
"Nothwithstanding the specific guarantees of the First Amendment and, by implication, that of the 14th, the quintet of rights enumerated in its language are NOT regarded as ABSOLUTE, despite Justice Hugo Black's ardent advocacy of such an approach....Unless one rejects utterly any regulatory governmental authority, First Amendment balancing, by whatever name, is an obvious necessity." p. 347 (emphasis mine)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Of course, an Authoritarian view would hold that fact as nonsense.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014569668
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97I10E20130819
dawg
(10,622 posts)Possession of information is now a crime?
Lot's of people here who'll be safe from ever having to face those charges>
randome
(34,845 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Now how the U.K. suspected he had those documents is another -and perhaps more interesting- question.
I would hazard a guess to say that those responsible for publishing classified documents are being monitored.
But that's standard procedure for suspects.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)How did the U.K. know this? Probably Germany has them under surveillance and alerted them. I don't know, I'm just guessing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that jump to your mind.
Could have been personal letters from Snowden to friends and family. How do you know?
Jumping to conclusions is not smart. We have to wait and see -- if we are ever told by our super-secret, self-serving government.
randome
(34,845 posts)But the optics and politics of detaining Miranda for 9 hours look bad. So I'm guessing Germany has been monitoring them and tipped off the U.K. After all, they are -as a group- in possession of stolen documents. But, again, we don't know much at this point.
It sure is strange that David Miranda -NOT a journalist- would be meeting with journalists in possession of stolen documents, though. Did Greenwald really think no one would notice?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Maybe messages from Snowden to personal friends and family.
Maybe legal stuff, maybe news reports from around the world. Could be anything. Greenwald is a very intelligent guy. And if he wanted to find a courier for something important, he could find lots of trustworthy people who would fly without a problem. They would be nationals of countries other than Brazil, the UK or the US.
That is my speculation on the matter. I have no more facts than anyone else.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Exactly. And jumping to conclusions, speculation and taking a side happens when "we know little at this point."
I, for one, want to know more. And it seems those in the NSA/GCHQ don't want anyone to know anything about what they are doing, especially if they broke the law. Understandable position, but it doesn't make it right by a long shot.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Whenever they want? Without a warrant or probable cause? It sounds like you're defending Iran, N Korea, or Russia.
randome
(34,845 posts)Airports would no longer function if warrants needed to be obtained first. That's the nature of high-speed travel these days. Security has the right to inspect your baggage and to remove anything they consider dangerous. That includes stolen documents, jewels, etc.
The alternative is to cage everyone until a judge can issue a warrant. Maybe set up a courtroom in every airport? You can see how ridiculous that gets in a very short time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Why did they use an anti-terrorism law to detain him? Why wasn't he arrested? They had nothing....it was simply a case of abuse of power to intimidate a journalist, like what Iran and N Korea do all the time. And you defend it.
randome
(34,845 posts)But the optics of harrassing Miranda are truly bad. It's not worth turning public opinion against you just for the sake of a little harrassment. It's not worth pissing off Greenwald even more, either. There is no gain.
So I'm guessing they did have reason to search him, we just haven't heard what it might be yet. The story is not 24 hours old yet. Give it time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)That means if you have an invention that could change the world, you have exceptional code that could speed up computers, or if you have love-letters between you and your spouse, the government can seize such things for themselves, since they are the final arbiter of what is and what is not subversive.
And that isn't hyperbole for anyone that wants to launch that defense, because it is clear by the actions of all involved in this spying scandal. And just so you know? I'll repeat it "LAWS BROKEN MASSIVELY BY GOVERNMENT SPY AGENCY".
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)He wasn't detained in Berlin
randome
(34,845 posts) Perhaps Germany didn't care but alerted the U.K.? It's all conjecture at this point.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Oh, I get it. That's the new tactic.
Use drug dealer language to demonize.
"Trafficking"
"Peddling"
"He's a mule."
Got it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Made into a science by Gobbles.
In propaganda you never say a person is just bad, he must be very very bad, the devil himself incarnate.
And you see it practiced here all the time...
RC
(25,592 posts)Maybe Greenwald didn't have access to the spell check he wanted to use from thousands of miles away.
And who knows how bad the punctuation in that information was.
We gotta give them a break here. Look at all the grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes right here on DU, ya knoe?.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)and so you know very well there is no such crime here. But you want to mislead other people, and you continue to say 'stolen', although you know it's false.
Shame on you.
randome
(34,845 posts)Greenwald says Miranda met with Poitras to obtain documents that Snowden furnished her.
Those documents were stolen so...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But 'stolen' is just the word I am using. I have no idea what kind of legal terminology is in play here. I doubt Miranda was detained for 9 hours just to hassle him. Anyone can see that would be counter-productive. So why was he searched? Who tipped the U.K. off? Germany? I suppose we'll find this out in a day or two.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)and so they will have seen The Guardian paid for it. I expect they have been monitoring all the tickets the Guardian buys even before the Snowden affair - they were Wikileaks partners, and before that Katherine Gun leaked the email showing the USA was bugging the UN to The Observer (same parent company, it just publishes on Sundays). For that matter, they've been the recipient of leaks back to the 1980s. Whether they were also monitoring Miranda himself by now, who knows.
I expect he was searched so that the UK can copy all of the data on his devices - a copy that would be illegal under any other circumstances. I think making him wait 9 hours was partly to make it clear that anyone associated with Greenwald will be harassed. Delaying telling Greenwald about it would also give them a chance to act on any information they got at once without him realising they had got it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is that no warrants were issued for this action and Miranda was detained without charges, all under some bullshit UK law that probably mimics our own bullshit laws. Bullshit TERRORISM laws, which don't apply to alleged theft of documents.
But Governments can never fail, they can only be failed...
randome
(34,845 posts)Suspicion is enough for detention. But there are limits on detention, too. All airports would close down if a warrant was needed for travellers entering or leaving the country. Or do you think no one should have their baggage x-rayed before boarding?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
grasswire
(50,130 posts)......they are not properly called "stolen". You might say "copied", but certainly not "stolen" as the NSA is still in possession of the originals.
But we have no evidence anyway that Miranda was carrying the Snowden documents.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't know the legal terminologies involved but I'm betting the law encompasses someone carrying copies of national security documents on his/her person, especially with the knowledge that they are illegal to possess. Or maybe as an added bonus, it's considered illegal to transport copies of said documents into another country.
Spies used to make microfilm copies of secret documents. I'm pretty sure that was against the law, too.
But you're right, we have no evidence of anything right now. Hopefully we will learn more soon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are falling for the conflation of hacking to terrorism. Don't do it. Use critical thought.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...of 'laundering'. But it makes one wonder why Miranda thought the U.K. was the country he would be 'safest' passing through. He had other routes available yet he chose the U.K.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If it is a crime, get a warrant.
It isn't even noon here, and you are using "launder" like he's got a bag full of money and doesn't know where to invest it to keep the IRS at bay.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)that narrative you are throwing around isn't holding up....
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)so unless you are privy to facts and data than the Brazilian government we are all ears....
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)The pro-NSA contingent on DU calling them 'stolen' is not 'reporting'. They are not 'stolen', according to English law.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and don't bother with the NYT article, because that has already been debunked.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Your browser cache is probably full of information from stolen government documents. You read DU and newspapers online, don't you? You follow NSA stories full of stolen data.
Instead of implying my stupidity perhaps you ought to be arranging your own surrender to authorities.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Maybe if someone dummied up some talking points?
Celefin
(532 posts)Why are even UK politicians 'gravely concerned' about this use of the terrorism act?
It simply doesn't add up.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Miranda was on a trip paid for by a newspaper.
Since when is it ok, to criminalize journalists in this fashion? You sure you want to walk down this road?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The mask has come off, and now everyone can see the REAL Obama Administration (at least, in their minds - most of us had suspected it before). And it's Snowden's and Greenwald's and, now, Miranda's fault. No punishment is too harsh for such a crime.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Can you rephrase that in the form of a map?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)If the leaks are not stopped illegal activities may be revealed and that would strike terror in the heart of the ruling class...clearly it is terrorism.
cali
(114,904 posts)Oh, you don't. typical. And typical of you to support this. Maybe there's a damned good reason you get called an authoritarian so often.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)It could have been his level in Final Fantasy, since it was encrypted, and no one knows what was actually on it. Really, how can anyone be this stupid?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Supposedly the only thing taken was the laptop belonging to Miranda. A day after Greenwald told him he was emailing some documents.
If true, the authorities aren't even pretending to follow the law anymore.
malthaussen
(17,184 posts)Of course, you know that.
It's... disconcerting... that so many people are still buying the line. It does make one wonder what it will take to wake them up.
-- Mal
Autumn
(45,038 posts)or not.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)boston bean
(36,220 posts)doesn't the US gov't already have all these documents?
They were leaked to a journalist.
To use anti terror laws to interrogate journalists, is just a road no thinking American should want to proceed down.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I mean, we're talking about digitial copies-- not paper documents. It's not like retrieving digital copy #10,012 will do you any good in terms of keeping the information locked up. What possible point could there be in detaining someone you suspect of having digital copies of something, other than intimidation?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)...US out cause you know...
We're MORE repressive than Russia and shit...
Bullshit ass'd story
quinnox
(20,600 posts)The authoritarian colors are showing big time, and looking foolish and dumb by grasping at straws of this caliber are really showing it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is nothing short of horrifying at this point.
They are normalizing the unconscionable with rhetoric. They are brazenly defending assaults on journalism.
Every American should be horrified by what is being done here. What we are dealing with is not just inane. The people who have seized control of these governments and the propaganda machine are dangerous. They are malignant to free societies.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)that what they say from one day to the next lacks all consistency.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They are wholly blameless individuals, intent only on protecting us. Everyone knows that, right?
matt819
(10,749 posts)How anyone on this forum can support the detention in the UK is beyond me.
If there was reasonable cause to arrest him, he should have been arrested.
There wasn't, so the British, in collusion with any number of USG agencies, detained him under a British law that allows suspected terrorists to be held for 9 hours. (Just picture the negotiations for this idiotic law.) There were no indications that he was a terrorist of any sort. This is a load of garbage, and Andrew Sullivan's comment this morning is most apt.
Look, I'm all for keeping secrets. There is stuff that the government does that has to remain secret. People's lives are really at stake. I've been there and done that. I understand it.
But you don't spy on Americans. Period. End of story. And you don't spy on or intimidate journalists, or their families. This is getting worse and worse for the US and for our democracy overall. And I'm sorry to say that the president is not exercising competence or leadership in this arena.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)That's why they're accepting the official line without the first question. Because that's what real skeptics do.
I think someone needs to see a dozen more OPs about how important the rule of law is by people that apparently suffer some sort of seizure that makes them skip a post where Cheney, Bush, Powell, or other war criminals (Or bankers. Or BP for that matter) are mentioned.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)yep you got it...just further talking points.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490634
How do you know they were stolen documents?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490162
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their stupid arguments are going to influence anyone with a brain.
In fact the more I see them trying to defend this, the more I despise them and the more I realize how important it is to support the Whistle Blowers and the Journalists who have had the guts to do what most of us would not.
Great post ...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)This will explain:
<snip>
"But the most brilliant technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
Bonus Points for anyone who can ID the above quote.
NealK
(1,862 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Unlike DU where knee jerk reactionism is a sport. The result is you have people claiming others are paid shills.
This isn't directed necessarily at you, but DU as a whole.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)9/11 was just the excuse.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and they were forced to destroy the documents they had.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130819
After further talks with the government, Rusbridger said, two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters, the British equivalent of the ultra-secretive U.S. National Security Agency, visited the Guardian's London offices.
In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized
And no yours is not the argument being made.
The argument being made is that Snowden stole a lot of sensitive information beyond the meta data thing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3495263
According to Der Spiegel, Snowden gave them the names of people working at NSA. Der Spiegel said publishing those names would endanger the lives of those people working at NSA.. The UK has people working at NSA facilities worldwide.
In addition, Snowden claimed to have the names of CIA clandestine ops and locations of CIA stations. MI6 clandestine ops use those stations. The exposure of the CIA/MI6 AQAP operative, for example, was definitely something that endangered not only the op's life but the public's lives. If the UK thought Snowden had any similar info that went to Poitras (perhaps from someone at Der Spiegel) and then to Miranda to give to Greenwald to publish, the UK had reason to stop Miranda.
This is not some Government is spying on us and it makes Obama look bad thing. This is a serious put people in harm and destroy legitimate Intel OP thing. And all of it is in the hands of two clowns. One who fled to Russia of all places with that info after stopping off in china and another who is a serial liar with dubious motivations.
This isnt a game and it certainly shouldnt be about Obama. I am all for strengthening the oversight of the patriot act hell I am all for abolishing it entirely. What i am not for is alowing two people with serious agendas to run off with sensitive US intel to disseminate it to what looks like our last remaining major adversaries in the world. If you think thats A OK well..We have huge dissagreements.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)If 'authorities' put this much effort into 'wanting to read the data' that the terrorist on Wall St are concealing, they would actually be protecting the public from terrorists, rather than what they are doing now ...
terrorising the public.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)applies to the security state - all of them - here.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)"And regarding the scary "Paid courier of Stolen Government Documents" thing... who among us can forget the round-up and detention of paper boys back (when) the NYT published the Pentagon Papers. Each and every tyke riding his bicycle laden with data from stolen government documents, and paid for his seditious efforts."
Indeed, who can forget?
K&R for the whole post.