Has it been established that David Miranda was carrying any documents from Snowden?

[snagglepuss]

[MADem]

1. That's what NYT says. nt

[sabrina 1]

11. And what would be illegal about someone carrying source material for a Journalist? US courts have

consistently ruled that Journalists are covered by 1st Amendment protections if they receive material from a source, even if the source obtained the material illegally.

And since the material came from the NSA what interest could the UK possibly have had in it, or what standing would they have to steal it, as they did?

[MADem]

31. Well, GG said it was from Snowden. And a barely literate hard-knock young man from

the wrong side of the tracks in Rio is not a "journalist." He was a courier, carrying stuff that Greenwald said was from Snowden's "trove" to his partner in Rio.

USA and UK have a longstanding intelligence relationship. You can use the internet to read up on it, if you'd like. Many Americans who find themselves living in UK while serving the US government in uniform or in a civilian capacity aren't there doing needlepoint, you know. Many Brits over here in the same capacities are here for the exact same reason.

[msanthrope]

2. Yes....

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0

[GeorgeGist]

5. slippery journalism at its finest.

Savage and Schwirtz never talked to Greenwald. They read the Guardian and added some STUFF to make it sound original.

[msanthrope]

7. So the three times in the paragraph where they write "Greenwald said," they are making that up?

I mean, that's terrible!!! I am sure that Mr. Greenwald will be issuing his statement regarding this falsity of this, soon.

[sabrina 1]

13. What does any of that have to do with the detention of a family member of a Journalist. And

what crime is committed by a Journalist who has obtained material from a source regardless of how the source obtained it?

And since the material came from the US's NSA, what interest or excuse could the UK possibly have in stealing it??

[msanthrope]

17. I don't answer your questions anymore, Sabrina, and if you are tweeting to Glenn tonight perhaps you

could recommend to him the novels of John LeCarre. They contain various insights that might help his tradecraft and make him look less the bumbling doofus spymaster.

[MADem]

32. Are you sure about that? I don't remember seeing that in the Guardian.... ??? nt

[bemildred]

3. NYT has reported that Greenwald said so. nt

[GeorgeGist]

4. In a act of slippery journalism Charlie Savage and Michael Schwirtz ...

made it that claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?ref=charliesavage

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. No. It has not been established, but it has been claimed by the New York Times.

...convenient lies from attorneys notwithstanding.

[sweetloukillbot]

19. Today's story has it attributed to Greenwald - his denials notwithstanding

"Mr. Greenwald said all of the documents encrypted on the thumb drives came from the trove of materials provided by Mr. Snowden."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/europe/britain-detains-the-partner-of-glen-greenwald.html?hp&_r=0

[MADem]

34. Well, that kinda ruins the "He never said that" gripe...! nt

[Little Star]

8. NYT's Said.......

Mr. Greenwald’s partner, David Michael Miranda, 28, is a citizen of Brazil. He had spent the previous week in Berlin visiting Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker who has also been helping to disseminate Mr. Snowden’s leaks, to assist Mr. Greenwald. The Guardian had paid for the trip, Mr. Greenwald said, and Mr. Miranda was on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0

So it sounds like he was carrying documents regarding Snowden.

But it also sounds like he was working for The Guardian Newspaper at the time.

[Autumn]

10. Actually The Guardian Newspaper says he is not employed by them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014569605

they paid for his trip because he was assisting Glenn.

[Little Star]

39. The Guardian should be re-thinking the not employing people...

who are assisting their reporters. That's just nuts that they don't employ them on a per-diem basis at least, if it's true they don't.

[sabrina 1]

15. So he was working for the Guardian?? Then he falls under the category of 'press'. All the more

reason to question WHY he was detained and why the 'source material' was stolen from him?

Since when did carrying source material, regardless of how the SOURCE obtained it, by a Journalist, justify being treated like a terrorist?

Unless of course, Journalism is now Terrorism.

[Autumn]

9. From what I understand he was carrying documents from Laura Poitras to Glenn.

This link will tell you about Laura Poitras

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491854

[Luminous Animal]

12. Greenwald says the Times claim is incorrect...

via twitter:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/369591413438033920

@ggreenwald The NYT got that wrong - I never told them what he was carrying - only that our work was about Snowden/NSA

[geek tragedy]

14. that's kind of like saying "I didn't tell anyone we'd have tackle, hooks and bait on us, just

that we'd be fishing."

[sabrina 1]

16. Could you explain that please? It seemed pretty clear to me, the NYT lied about what he said.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Given that one of the reporters on the story is Charlie Savage, I think they may

have misheard or misinterpreted Greenwald.

[geek tragedy]

21. So, the Guardian pays for the trip for Greenwald's husband to fly to London to

meet with the other person who has electronic copies of the Snowden documents, and then fly to Brazil. So far as we know, Miranda, a student, has no relevant expertise on these issues.

If the security agencies couldn't figure out that hey'd be carrying those files, I'd really worry about their competence.

[sabrina 1]

23. Your comment still fails to explain why someone who was carrying source material, assuming he was,

for a journalist, who was working on a news story, should be considered a 'terrorist'. You are rambling and not addressing the question everyone is asking. Where is the crime in assisting a Journalist do his job, which is to inform the public on issues that are 'in the public interest'?

[geek tragedy]

24. Have you read the UK's 'terrorism' statute? It's grossly overbroad, far worse than

the Patriot Act.

[sabrina 1]

29. So, do you agree with the detention of an assistant to two journalists under those extremely

controversial laws? Why was he detained? The law was invented, yes, INVENTED, with the excuse of 'fighting terror'. So how are they 'fighting terror' by detaining an assistant to two journalists carrying source material, a completely legal thing to do, which had zero to do with Britain? The material came from the NSA, a US organization and had zero to do with Britain, they didn't own it, it didn't come from any of THEIR spies, so what was THEIR interest in the material?

[Luminous Animal]

18. Why would everyone assume that they contained source information...

They could have been trying to exchange work product.

[geek tragedy]

22. Because that kind of collaboration has to occur in a real-time basis, especially

given the subject matter.

If they needed couriers to have any kind of communication, Miranda would have about ten million frequent flyer miles.

Journalistic work product would have a lot greater legal privilege/protection than would be the files misappropriated by Snowden.

[Luminous Animal]

26. I would assume that they both currently have copies of the source files and the information

that they wished to exchange was work product based on those files. Certainly, British security had no idea what Miranda was carrying (and still don't) but seized his equipment anyway.

[geek tragedy]

28. No, I believe it's understood that Poitras has the full set

as she was the original recipient, and had to convince Greenwald to come on board. 20,000 documents is a lot of data, especially the data dense stuff that Snowden probably has.

British security had a very good idea what he had on him, hence the demands for encryption keys.

[Luminous Animal]

35. I believe that Greenwald has claimed he has the full set. Both only received about 20 documents

before they met up with Snowden in Hong Kong.

Security may think they knew what Miranda was carrying but they certainly did not know. Given that Poitras has been described as a security freak, I can't imagine her including original source material.

One thing for sure, Bart Gellman of the Washington Post better stay out of Britain.

[sabrina 1]

27. You still have not explained, even he was carrying source material as an assistant to two

journalists, should be viewed as a Terrorist? Are you claiming that journalism is terrorism and therefore the detention of Miranda under a very controversial TERROR LAW, was justified? I'm clear at all on what you are trying to say. Please clarify. And remember, courts have consistently ruled that Journalists, the Press (which would include an assistant like Miranda) are not committing any crime by using material received from a SOURCE, regardless of how the SOURCE obtained the material.

Please point to the crime here that warranted an assistant to two journalist being treated like a terrorist.

I am very interested in your opinion on this.

[geek tragedy]

30. I am making no such claim, but under the UK law it does fall into that category.

So does owning a subway schedule or road map, that's how bad the UK statute is.

It's being used abusively here.

[Luminous Animal]

36. There are plenty of well-respected people in the UK who beilieve that the terrorist act was

grossly misused in this case.

[geek tragedy]

40. I agree with them.

But if you read that statute, it's a blank check.

[bemildred]

25. That's what I wanted to hear.

It would be foolish for Greenwald, having encrypted stuff hand-carried to him, to tell those who seized it what it was, no?

[Catherina]

33. Thank you. I said that from the beginning but you know how deaf/blind people pretend to be

Here is what I wrote earlier:

They cleverly sandwiched that inflammatory speculation between two indirect quotes. That speculation doesn't even make sense because Laura Poitras is an expert in electronically transmitting secure, encrypted files. It makes even less sense after the NYT throws in "All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden". Both Poitras and Greenwald have had the full "trove" since Hong Kong. They don't need to send 'Snowden's documents', something they each already have, back and forth to each other trans-atlantically like that.

The Guardian published a report on Mr. Miranda’s detainment on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Greenwald said someone who identified himself as a security official from Heathrow Airport called him early on Sunday and informed him that Mr. Miranda had been detained, at that point for three hours. The British authorities, he said, told Mr. Miranda that they would obtain permission from a judge to arrest him for 48 hours, but he was released at the end of the nine hours, around 1 p.m. Eastern time.

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=1&

What's most likely is that the Five Eyes countries need to intercept, or at least find out, what "dribs and drabs" Greenwald's might make next and so they can pre-emptively lie. Evo Morales plane, Lavabit, Silent Circle, and now this incident.

Not only does Greenwald not need any Snowden files from Poitras because they both already have the full set but Poitras is a woman who wipes her hard drive before she travels and no way would she have let Miranda travel with Snowden files on his computer IR that's what the trip was about.

These lies are so fucking transparent. And the NYT doesn't have such a great record when it comes to carrying water for the security state. A lie here, a lie there and pretty soon you got WMDs in Iraq.

I'm glad Greenwald directly confirmed what many of us have been saying about the NYT's article and grateful you caught that tweet.

[Luminous Animal]

37. Hey Catherina, have you seen this?

UK Govt threatened Guardian UK with prior restraint, forced to destroy its hard drives & NSA files

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023492681

[Catherina]

38. Great minds think alike! I was going to post it

then I did a google search that brought Koko's thread up so I commented instead. Thanks for the link to yours which focused more on the legal, hard drives & NSA files. I'm going to your thread now.