All in favor of detaining journalists or their significant others, raise your hands.

[WilliamPitt]

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

...warfle warfle warfle stolen documents warfle warfle...

THAT'S WHAT LEAKERS DO. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE JOURNALISTS.



On edit: "warfle warfle" is all I hear when I hear people cheer the detention of significant others of journalists tied to leakers.

Leakers obtain documents the people need to know about. Journalists publish those documents, a la the Pentagon Papers, so the people can know the degree to which their government has gone off the rails. Both serve an absolutely vital purpose. Cheering when the significant other of a journalist is detained UNDER A FUCKING TERRORISM LAW is a disgrace.

Reflexively polishing the administration's apple is getting to be a bad habit around here, and after this most recent disgrace, anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves...and if you actually believe or try to argue that the administration wasn't hip to this jive, I have a great big bridge to sell you right over scenic San Francisco bay.

He was detained under a TERRORISM law. Not fraud, or larceny, or theft. TERRORISM. Beat that with a stick.

Fascists are not all on the right. Fascists suck up to power in whatever form it presents itself.

warfle fucking warfle.

[mike_c]

1. is there any more room under the bus...?

Slide over there, 'bro.

[LWolf]

273. We've got a whole fleet of buses now.

The teacher bus.

The labor bus.

The senior citizen bus.

And on and on.

[neverforget]

2. If this were done under a Republican President........

well, you know......

[pnwmom]

103. They don't have Republicans in the U.K.

And Britain had its own reasons for doing this stupid thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023492002

[neverforget]

108. So they don't have conservatives there?

And yes, this was a stupid thing

[pnwmom]

113. They do. But they don't work under Obama. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

222. UK Conservatives are not even Republican-Lite.

.

[awoke_in_2003]

155. Yes, they have their reasons...

because they were told to.

[tblue]

158. Torys.

All the parties seem to blur now, same as here.

[pnwmom]

252. I know they have their own conservatives. But this wasn't "done under"

a U.S. President of either party.

[former9thward]

267. Not publicly anyway.

[Why Syzygy]

317. They all march

to the same CIA/MIC beat. The only thing they can be accused of is saving their own necks by bowing to the Real Power - the spooks.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-assassination-marked-the-end-of-the-american-republic/5346419

.... "In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better." ...

[Civilization2]

240. The UK was so concerned about the leaked US documents, that they invoked a TERROR LAW!

Sure, it has nothing to do with the US of A,. good luck selling that one,. .

Thanks for the "exit link" to your own post,. I'm sure it needs more traffic, and you would like to close the debate down on this one.

[pnwmom]

251. I didn't say it had nothing to do with us. But they have just as much reason as our govt.

not to want their secrets spread all over the world.

And being Britain, invoking a terror law wasn't a big deal. Ask the I.R.A.

[LondonReign2]

107. Its totally different when its under a Republican President

Then it is bad:

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[JackRiddler]

138. heh.

[NealK]

204. Lol!

Great find.

[backscatter712]

216. Score! n/t

[Enthusiast]

221. Extra nice post!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[truebrit71]

236. Brilliant!

[Capt. Obvious]

241. That's different!

[hootinholler]

249. I never thought I would ask for a link to a ProSense post

But please? I need that on my bookmark list.

[LondonReign2]

253. I have to give credit where credit is due

woo me with science dug this post up originally. My membership is expired, but woo can probably search and provide the link.

[progressoid]

275. I think this is it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

[hootinholler]

277. Thanks!

That does seem to be it.

[struggle4progress]

256. "I have many documents about England's espionage system" - G. Greenwald

[AllyCat]

331. Nice one! Of course, that was then...

[L0oniX]

114. This bullshit was started by republicans and the RepubliDems are expanding it. n/t

[hfojvt]

153. Valerie Plame

Coulda sworn we wanted some people jailed over that leak, maybe even some journalists.

and parenthetically

warfle, warfle.

[neverforget]

157. Let's see. Cheney leaked info that outed an agent for political purposes.

Snowden leaked information that the US government is illegally spying on Americans. Senator Wyden says this is the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs

Daniel Ellsberg leaked information on the Vietnam War with the Pentagon Papers.

warfle warfle indeed

[hfojvt]

179. a bit of a warfle to compare this to Vietnam, isn't it?

Like there are villages being napalmed now that Snowden is heroically putting a stop to.

Former Senator Kerry appears to disagree about the value of Snowden's leaks.

But it would appear that not EVERY leak is ALWAYS in the public interest just because it is leaked by a journalist.

[Civilization2]

242. drone murders count? gitmo/abu ghraib? occupations? The war-OF-terror is an awful mess,.

millions killed since 9/11,. seems to have some resonance with other wars based on lies and for profits that failed badly.

[hfojvt]

310. most of those millions were killed in Iraq

and the US has been out of Iraq (largely) for a number of years before Snowden pulled his heroics.

50,000 Americans dead in Vietnam, 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead.

So yeah, sure, Snowden is like Ellsburg since he got people upset about the government spying on their private browser history. At least he got a few thousand people upset who have read about it extensively on the internets.

The latter being almost as bad as the Holocaust.

[Civilization2]

323. Iraq was in the War-OF-Terror. They declared war on a tactic remember? Not one country all of THEM

Oh, I see not ENOUGH dead for you to see it as a bad thing,. nice.

Just in case you also forgot, this thread is about "detaining journalists or their significant others", not the equating of leakers and the relative "value" of what they leaked.

But since you bring it up, the corporate mercenaries spying for the growing police-state and the off-handed dismissal of the wreaking of the constitution, for power does interest some of us.

[uhnope]

3. all in favor of free passes for significant others trafficking in stolen stuff, raise your hand

[NorthCarolina]

6. OK, so you're hands are definitely UP for the OP. nt

[Marrah_G]

7. So you are in favor of the detainment of journalists and their significant others.

How about arrest? Should journalists be arrested for digging to deeply into abusive state secrets? And do you consider yourself a progressive? A liberal?

Edit: actually don't bother answering, I won't see your response.

[Demeter]

212. Or torture, or indefinite detention

It's not like the abuse of power is going to stop after 9 hours. If anything, it will be inflamed and expanded by getting away with that first attempt.

[christx30]

314. Journalists should simply accept anything

the government tells them as the facts. Never dig. Never question. Never dig. They should ask for permission to publish every story they want to write about. There should, in fact, be a Party member or Public Information Officer stationed in every newspaper, magazine, radio and TV station in the US and UK.
That way none of this messy freedom of the press stuff can get in the way of fighting the glorious War on Terror.

[leftstreet]

10. What stolen stuff did he have?

[uhnope]

34. He had documents that Snowden stole on his thumb drive, according to 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

[leftstreet]

36. How do we know they weren't LOLCATs?

[deurbano]

88. LOL! I hope they were!

That would be a bit of a surprise for those who seized them.

(I think Greenwald and Miranda are more dog people, though.)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

167. Empires are known for that...

[Enthusiast]

223. I have it on the strictest confidence that

the information on the thumb drives was comprised entirely of LOLCATs. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Luminous Animal]

85. Mr Greenwald never said that they were Snowden documents. If you read your paragraph

intelligently, you would see that. And Mr Greenwald denies that the drives contained Snowden documents.

[railsback]

102. That makes it 'truth'….

I guess.

[delrem]

172. I agree with what you seem to be implying:

that a bit of torture wouldn't be amiss.

[GeorgeGist]

215. So which Greenwald lie do you believe?

[sabrina 1]

99. That was source material provided to the Journalist, Greenwald, which means it was perfectly

legal for him to assist both Journalists in their work of publishing news that is in the interests of the people.

So who did you say stole something? Leaked material is how Journalists GET their stories. When did it become a crime to be a Journalist, or married to a Journalist, or assistant to a Journalist?

[hfojvt]

311. leaked material may be how SOME journalists get stuff

maybe investigative journalism

but there is a lot of journalism, or writing that can happen without the use of any leaks. See, for example, everything I have written on DU.

That could be journalism, if the people who employ journalists actually cared about the budget and taxes and ordinary people.

[delrem]

168. Let's cut to the chase.

He was a suspect, of something, so hasn't a case.
I agree with you uhnope, the fucker deserves everything coming at him.

Consider: The NSA explains about a "3 hop" parameter within which everything that goes on is perfectly legal.

This *terrorist sympathizer* (because we agree that these leaks foment terrorism) was in the first bloody 'hop'.

We gotta get these terrorists! That we do, uhnope.

By the way, welcome to DU!!!

[Mojorabbit]

200. You will notice Mr Greenwald did not say the docs were from Snowden.

The reporter said that.

[Civilization2]

245. Summary execution then! Journalists are the new terrorists!! Off with their heads!!! No trials!!!!

Leaked documents in the hands of journalists are acts of TERROR?

The corporate-military state MUST be made safe from the people!!!! <hair on fire> Shut down the inter- webs!!! Outlaw public speaking, AAARRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!! <head explodes>

[Humanist_Activist]

297. Uhm, that's not theft, its probably a violation of some state secret acts, but not theft...

its like saying copyright infringement is theft, its not, penalty wise, its a whole lot worse.

[uhnope]

298. same difference. Point is, getting detained for having that in yr possession is not surprising. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

299. Its not a "same difference", generally theft carries a lot less of a penalty...

but more to the point, I'm being pedantic because this is a pet peeve of mine, being inaccurate in a statement of fact.

Also, "same difference" as a phrase, is only used by the intellectually lazy.

[WilliamPitt]

11. ...warfle warfle...

...warfle warfle warfle stolen documents warfle warfle...

THAT'S WHAT LEAKERS DO. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE JOURNALISTS.

[GliderGuider]

257. The warflers seem to believe that those who make the laws are above the law.

If they make a law that says it's illegal to challenge the law that says it's legal to make a law that makes it illegal to challenge the law, and that anybody who tries to find a side door out of that Alice-in-Wonderland maze is breaking the law, then hey, it sucks to be us.

This is what a free press and leakers constitute: that side door.

[mindwalker_i]

16. WTF is this shit?

Where the fuck do people get off saying we should arrest, torture, whatever the very people who are telling us that our government is FUCKING US UP THE ASS? "Oh, but he stole the stuff from the government about the crimes it was committing..." Did the people who showed us what Nixon was doing steal? How about the people who showed us Iran Contra? Ooo, maybe we should put teachers in jail who tell us about how we gave the indians small pox?

Or is it just that now the president is a democrat, and no matter what he does, we can't criticize him? That's as bad as saying because a priest is Catholic, a member of that religion can't criticize him for raping children.

If we aren't willing to speak against our own when they break the law, then our party doesn't deserve to remain in power.

[City Lights]

24. You nailed it, right here...

Or is it just that now the president is a democrat, and no matter what he does, we can't criticize him?

Infuriating, isn't it?

[Skittles]

131. it's not that the president is a Dem

it's that the president is Obama

[delrem]

174. nope.

It's that the president, whoever he represents, is totally wrong on this.

[Skittles]

187. I think you are misunderstanding

[chimpymustgo]

220. Please explain what you mean, Skittles. This is a civil rights issue. It has nothing to do with

party or race.

Do you believe Americans have civil liberties that are being abrogated by the government?

[Skittles]

319. the Dems who are excusing these violations

they care more about Obama's reputation than they do about the direction America is taking.....what I'm saying is they will be changing their tune when Obama is no longer president and really see that it is indeed a civil rights issue.

[chimpymustgo]

320. Oh, for sure! Thanks for clarifying!

[Skittles]

321. whassup, chimpy?

[City Lights]

238. I hadn't thought of it that way.

You may be right. The adoration for Obama I've seen here is like nothing I've seen before.

[sabrina 1]

26. That's one hand up so far.

'trafficing' is the new word for a Journalist's 'source material'? Thanks for letting us know. I like to keep up on the latest adverbs and adjectives to describe Journalism.

[Art_from_Ark]

62. There's also document "laundering"

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3489464

[sabrina 1]

83. Lol, I think we need a list. And from a random poster too. Someone should maybe hire

these creative 'thinkers' don't you think? As far as I know HB Gary lost the contract to smear Greenwald when Anonymous exposed their emails. It was creepy to see how they go about bidding on a contract to smear a blogger who was not that well known at the time.

So 'laundering' and 'trafficing'. Sounds a lot like what they were proposing, but sadly, Anonymous ended their chance to get that contract.

But maybe someone else got it? Lol!

[bobduca]

30. you all pick the best names

designed to hurt with ideas

[Cerridwen]

40. How'd they know?

How'd they know he was carrying anything "illegal?"

It reminds me of the after-the-fact defense that says a woman was raped because she was wearing "sexy underwear."

How'd the rapist know what her underwear looked like?

How'd those who detained Miranda know he had "stolen," "illegal," documents?

He was detained for who he was and because he was associated with someone they wanted. Why else even look?

[uhnope]

67. reminds me of the longtime roommate of any trafficker getting detained.

[Cerridwen]

208. I imagine it does.

[morningfog]

43. Do you think Greenwald and/or Miranda are terrorists?

[uhnope]

54. do you think sneaking stolen stuff thru an airport should be okay? How about kiddie porn?

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

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.

[morningfog]

58. Do you think they are terrorists?

[uhnope]

65. oh I get it. you're with us or you're with the terrorists, double reversed.

the alternate universe mirror image of GW Bush would be proud

[morningfog]

66. Do you think they are terrorists? Should be an easy

question.

[uhnope]

74. Have you stopped beating your boyfriend? Should be easy. Take a logic class

You go first--
do you think sneaking stolen stuff thru an airport should be okay? How about kiddie porn?

[morningfog]

76. Do you think they are terrorists?

This is not a gotcha question.

[Jakes Progress]

244. You failed logic.

Or intelectual honesty. Shame on your stooping to any level, to avoid actually discussing the issue.

If you had ever been exposed to a logic class, you would see the four types of logical fallacies in your inane and embarrassing post.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

264. Just answer the damned question. Do you think Miranda is a terrorist? eom

[Jakes Progress]

344. Did you misplace your reply?

I don't think I have been asked that question. It is the one that I was chastising unhope for avoiding.

But if you reread the thread and still need to have me answer, i will tell you that the British Government broke all kinds of laws and set new records for stupid with their actions. Miranda is not a terrorist.

[cui bono]

193. That's not at all what that is. It is a simple question.

Miranda was detained under a terrorist law. Do you think he is a terrorist?

How on earth did you get to that nonsense you posted about either with us or whatever.... ???

[Jakes Progress]

243. Not what was asked.

Now you are using great bush tactics. Duck. Dodge. Avoid. Change the subject. Attack with distraction.

(You should hang your head in shame over the kiddie porn tactic. Shame on you.)

[Warren DeMontague]

206. first you're sneaking stolen sturf thru the airport, before you know it, yer

sneakin' sally through the alley.

[tnlefty]

87. Where is the proof of child pornagraphry?

Or did you just pull that out? And most adults who are concerned about child pornagaghy/trafficking don't refer to it as kiddie porn...are you involved? Just asking...

[LondonReign2]

110. Now you are trying to equate whistleblowing to kiddie porn?

Good god, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

[morningfog]

120. And notice the repeated refusal to say it is not terrorism.

Scary double think going on these days.

[LondonReign2]

126. And these people claim to be Democrats

I'm not prone to conspiracy theories but I'm starting to believe these so-called Democrats are really double agents intent on driving people from the Democratic party with their assinine far right positions.

But then I think, Why bother? when Democratic politicians are doing such a good job of it all by themselves.

[tazkcmo]

165. They detained him under a terrorist statute

And released him. If he was carrying stolen anything he'd be in jail.

[cui bono]

192. Please tell me you are not really equating Snowden's leaks with kiddie porn.

Please. That is truly unbelievable.

[Warren DeMontague]

205. "Hell, It could have been HUMAN HEADS, for god's sake, a thumb drive full of HUMAN FREAKIN HEADS!"

"Oh, sure, I bet you'd let just anyone waltz around the airport with a duffel bag full of human heads, youuuuu, yoouuuuuuu..... libertarian!"

totally the same thing!!!!!!!!

[questionseverything]

246. when they come for your rights

"they" have to invoke some horrible thing so they can say if you don't give up your rights you want...A BAG OF HUMAN HEADS!!!!!!!

[frylock]

272. is this the new meme? if you support the leaks, then you support kiddie porn?

is that the turd you're going to throw at the wall to see if anyone salutes?

[Valhallakey]

330. Remember - Supreme Court - Pentagon papers - it is UK though so all different rules

If this was the US and unhope was commenting from a US citizen perspective ... He did not steal anything. He shared our documents. Remember government by the people for the people. The Supreme Court has ruled that the first amendment trumps the governments attempts to keep information secret so once it is in a reporters hand it is no longer in question. From a UK perspective it seems a reach to say he is involved in acts of terrorism which that law (7) is meant for. Of course you can stretch a law to mean what you want it to mean. it could mean buying clothes made in Yemen, or if you have donated to the "wrong" charity you should be detained and relinquish all your electronics etc...

[morningfog]

82. There are legal avenues to deal with such violations.

Unless you think they are terrorists?

[Fire Walk With Me]

98. You're missing that it's legal to persecute someone for revealing illegal spying. n/t

[L0oniX]

117. Put down the crack pipe.

[tazkcmo]

159. Prove that

You do not know that. Back it up.

[uhnope]

178. prove it all night long

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

[TM99]

214. Let's parse this quote once and for all for the reading & comprehension impaired.

First sentence:

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.

Here is a statement 'sourced' to Greenwald.

Third sentence:

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.

Here is another statement 'sourced' to Greenwald.

Second sentence:

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

What is missing from this sentence that was present in the other two? Hint - there is no sourcing. It does not end with Mr. Greenwald said.

It is sandwiched between two other sourced quotes so that those who aren't paying attention will believe that Greenwald said that the documents were from Snowden. He did not say it. The writer of the NYT article is saying it. That is all. Greenwald's own Guardian blog on the incident never specifically mentions what was on the electronic media...only that it was all confiscated including a fucking gaming console.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

Buck up little camper, because you are not the only sycophant who has fallen for the 'creative writing' in this paragraph tying to contort reality to your own brand of thinking on the topic.

PS - This is called checkmate, so you will need to find a new argument as this particular one is no longer useable once facts are actually presented.

[Javaman]

269. +1 nt

[hueymahl]

274. Awesome!

Love to see intellectual dishonesty exposed for what it is!!!

[uhnope]

278. That's ridiculous, dumb and illiterate. But I'll make you a bet

It's common journalistic practice to not put "X said" after every single thing that X said. It would be a crazy to read. In the paragraph we're talking about, it absolutely means Greenwald said that all of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. If that journalist on the NY Times tried to imply that Greenwald said something like that when he didn't, it would be something to get fired over.

I'll make you a bet. If it comes out that Miranda's documents were not from Snowden, I'll never post on DU again. If word comes out that Miranda did have Snowden documents, you'll never post on DU again. You game?

& Please, let's try to raise the standard of literacy around here a little bit.

[TM99]

280. I don't gamble with idiots.

I understand journalism well, and you are right. But in this case, they did it two out of three times. Are you capable of guessing why?

You claim that it is directly from Snowden. We don't know and won't know...yet. If it is, it still doesn't change the 'issue' at hand, but for Gawd's sake man, have the intellectual honesty to recognize that your 'proof' was not 'proof' in this case.

You are guessing it is and basing an argument on that guess. Like I said, I am not going to bet with someone that believes that kind of bullshit.

Frankly, I hope you keep posting here. It makes it a lot easier to see just how taken in by bullshit most people are - no matter what level of intelligence they might claim.

[uhnope]

291. you're a very confused person but you're smart not to take a losing bet.

First you say yes, I'm right, then you say no, it's not right, it's not proof.

If Greenwald said the docs on Miranda were from Snowden, that's proof, and that's the way it is. Where's the debate here?

And if someone is going thru an airport with stolen stuff, then getting detained is to be expected. I don't support the UK using its terrorism laws to do it, but the detention itself could happen to any mule, unwitting or otherwise. You know, the old "Here, sweetheart, hold this bag while we go through customs."

Then you resort to name-calling, in the same breath of mentioning intellectual honesty. That's really confused. I'm mean, I know it must be frustrating to yell "checkmate" when it's not, but come on.

The church of Snowden-Greenwald is starting to resemble Scientology. For the sake of your own intellect, you might want to get out while you can.

[TM99]

316. Confused?

Hardly.

Please read my other post in this thread. This is NOT stolen material. Miranda is NOT a mule. You can pretend it is 'true' but it is not.

Therefore, really, unhope, who is acting like a part of a religion?

Again, thanks for playing.

[cui bono]

191. Even if what you say is entirely true, that makes him a terrorist... how?

Exactly?

[uponit7771]

194. +1

[Celefin]

207. 'Trafficking' means smuggling illegal items or people with intent so sell them

-there was no intent to sell anything
-journalistic source material is not illegal (kiddie porn is, before you bring that up)

[hootinholler]

255. Uhhhh, NOPE!

Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.

Besides others have pointed out how wrong you are on this.

[Javaman]

268. blindfolds and ear plugs are all the rage! nt

[Marrah_G]

4. There is a place on my ignore list for anyone who thinks it is okay

It's mind boggling to see such behavior defended by people who claim to be progressives.

[go west young man]

97. There are a lot of people posting here lately

with low post counts who definitely aren't progressives. And there are job opportunities out there these days for folks who want to do so. http://www.navyreserve.com/jobs/information-professional.html?campaign=jobs_indeed_information-professional

[laundry_queen]

182. I'd say there are also

'sleeper' posters. When you look at their join date, it's several years ago, and they have a decent post count but 95% of their posts are within the last 90 days. Not weird at all.

[bvar22]

294. Either sleepers,

...or the NSA (or private sub contractor) has found a way to access the roster old screen names & passwords that haven't been used in a number of years,
and adopt them as a vehicle to distribute the latest government Talking Points
under the assumption that nobody at DU is smart enough to see through their clever disguise.

I've noticed that pattern too
while checking profiles trying to answer the question,
"Where did all these a**holes come from all of a sudden?"

[Skittles]

101. they'll stop defending this stuff in the beginning of 2017

it is idol worship and sheer hypocrisy for now though

[Marrah_G]

105. Bingo!

I have zero patience left for that type.

[RC]

115. They'll just switch to the next President.

If Democrat, they will stay here. If the next President is a Republican, they will go else where.

[Skittles]

125. no, they will not

it is limited to Obama - just watch

[RC]

127. Oh, I'll be watching.

[Skittles]

130. I'll be keeping them on Ignore

they have lost all creditility

[RC]

150. You got that right.

No creditility either.

[morningfog]

121. Scary times. It shows there is no limit to what they will defend.

[Egalitarian Thug]

148. Don't do it, please. It's easy to ignore them the old fashioned way, but not seeing the shit

they write gives you the false impression that they aren't here.

[Marrah_G]

151. I know they are here, I just choose not to read their crap

Personal choice and keeps me from getting posts hidden. I have one of those nasty red head tempers sometimes

[Egalitarian Thug]

162. Ms. Thug is a redhead, I have some notion.

I just see a lot of sane people here that are not calling these shitheels on their crap, and being just a shade on the, shall we say, proactive side, it rankles.

Yes, you are right, but still...

Peace & luck to us all, we're going to need it.

[Marrah_G]

166. I have hope that eventually the admins will get tired of it :)

[Demeter]

213. I doubt that, Marrah

The last iteration of DU seemed designed specifically to get us to this point.

I'm not saying DU2 was perfect, but it was a lot better than this.

[backscatter712]

217. Mine too.

I come here to talk to Democrats, not authoritarians.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Hee hee...K&R.

[quinnox]

8. A sure sign of authoritarianism is if you are defending this action

No question about it.

[kenny blankenship]

9. They're not that hard to find...

Look, here are some hands up in Italy!

[MrMickeysMom]

13. No, they sure aren't hard to find, kenny...

Good Germans.... Good Italians... Good Americans...

history!

[kenny blankenship]

14. Here's some more hands up in Greece

[one_voice]

22. Oh good...

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 09:21 AM - Edit history (3)

Nazi/skin head/hitler lover picture.

When calling people, Nazi/skin head/hitler lover, good german, and the newest one, good aryan, just won't do.





edited to fix due to do...don't know how I made that mistake. Thanks to HangOnKids for pointing that out, albeit rudely. Guess they enjoyed the picture and didn't take kindly to criticism of it.

[HangOnKids]

156. That would be just won't do

Due is like a bill that needs to be paid. So sorry you did not get that.

[Whisp]

202. I'm waiting for Attilla the Hun...

for originality, at least, or worst....

or Mengele, has anyone mentioned Mengele toward un unBleevers in The Grate GG? I'm sure some of us are Close to That!

[woolldog]

12. Wait, so just because someone is a journalist,

it's ok for them to break the law?

[mindwalker_i]

17. Just because someone's the president,

it's ok for them to break the law?

[sabrina 1]

27. Explain how a Journalist is breaking the law by publishing material s/he received from a source?

Be careful though I have checked the law on this. I suspect Greewald has also.

[kenny blankenship]

46. So-called journalist Victor Lazslo was not merely accused but found guilty

He must return home and face the music. It's the law!

[HardTimes99]

133. Is this a reference to the film 'Casablanca'? - nt

[kenny blankenship]

175. yes.

The underlying "crime" Victor Laszlo is pursued for to a remote colonial backwater was simply printing newspapers with content the govt didn't approve of - that, and breaking out of imprisonment. He most surely broke the law - if not before the annexation of the Sudetenland, then certainly after annexation, and then later on when he broke out of jail. Those people in this thread with their hands up would have a hard fight, going against the general drift of Casablanca, to convince us that Victor Laszlo must return to Europe to "face the music" because he was a lawbreaker, but fight they would. He broke the law, and when someone breaks the law, nothing else matters: the state is empowered to use all means to run them to ground. So they keep telling us, anyway.

[tazkcmo]

173. He was detained under Title 7 of their version of the Patriot Act.

So, what law did that young man break? Why was he released if he was carrying stolen documents?

[Maedhros]

284. Miranda was detained using a law explicitly passed to allow interviews of suspected terrorists.

How is a journalist a suspected terrorist?

Give up the slavish worship of power structures. Just because a government does it, doesn't mean it's justified.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. They are just mystified why they are being called authoritarians. Nt.

[dawg]

19. They don't even understand what the word means.

They say, "you call us rude names too - that means you're the authoritarian!". Um ... no. That's not how it works.

They also think authoritarian means the same thing as conservative. It doesn't.

[frylock]

71. they also think that the word "liberal" means "not republican"

[rug]

18. Don't forget about their dogs.

Can't be too soft on crime.

[michigandem58]

20. Depends if they broke the law

How about we wait for the facts to come in?

[sabrina 1]

28. Explain how a journalist is breaking any law by using material provided to him/her by a Source.

[michigandem58]

31. His cellphone, laptops and memory sticks were confiscated.

Let's see what pops up.

[sabrina 1]

33. Really? Why were they confiscated. Was he on a terrorist list? Did he commit a crime? Before

stealing someone's property, especially if it is a member of the Press, there has to some cause. You seem to be skipping that important step. Unless you know something no one else knows. And since he was not arrested we know he did not commit any crime.

So why were his possessions stolen from him again?

[uhnope]

38. he had stolen documents. he isn't a member of the press. he's the boyfriend.

Would you expect not to get detained if you were trafficking stolen stuff through an airport?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html

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.

[tazkcmo]

176. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

3rd time you have posted this. The documents he was allegedly in possession of were NOT from Snowden. Those he dropped off in Berlin. And he is NOT a boyfriend, he is a life partner. Also, why was he detained under terrorism statutes and then released?

[NealK]

210. +1

[michigandem58]

41. Under the Terrorism Act of 2000, he doesn't have to be even be suspected of terrorism

"Read Schedule 7 and it is quite clear that officers do not need to suspect that an individual is a terrorist or involved in terrorism. They are allowed to stop, question and detain individuals in order to ascertain whether they might be a terrorist. They can stop anyone at all, and hold them for nine hours."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100231572/david-mirandas-detention-is-not-as-sinister-as-it-sounds-but-our-sweeping-anti-terror-laws-are/

[sabrina 1]

53. I'm not interested in those phony Bush/Cheney inspired fake laws. I am asking how a person

who has not committed any crime can be detained and threatened and have his possessions stolen from him under the REAL law?

Please do not bring Bush/Cheney policies here and expect anyone to take them seriously.

This person committed no crime. So explain why he was singled out and robbed of his possessions and threatened with jail, when clearly there was no cause for those threats as evidenced by his release without charges.

You're not making your case here. Well I assume it's your case since you appear to be defending these draconian actions. I could be wrong, I sure hope so.

[michigandem58]

77. He was detained with good reason

"The deeper you delve the more it seems that Mr Miranda was deeply enmeshed in Mr Greenwald's work with Edward Snowden, the whistleblower, and a legitimate subject of concern for UK border authorities.

First, let us not forget that Mr Greenwald was the recipient of security documents stolen by Mr Snowden. In interviews, Mr Greenwald has said he at one stage planned to pass these documents to Mr Miranda.

In addition, The Guardian – after updating its original story last night – has now admitted that Mr Miranda was detained while travelling on tickets paid for by the paper. Why, if Mr Miranda were merely the partner of Mr Greenwald, would this be the case? According to The New York Times, it is because he was essentially acting as a document mule, carrying sensitive information with him as he travelled to and from a meeting with Laura Poitras, a documentary maker who has worked on the Snowden leaks"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100231572/david-mirandas-detention-is-not-as-sinister-as-it-sounds-but-our-sweeping-anti-terror-laws-are/

[sabrina 1]

95. 'Mr. Greenwald' is a Journalist. 'Deeply enmeshed' with a Journalist writing a news story, is

NOT a crime, in any democracy. The Daily Telegraph is a Right Wing publication. The paper that supports the Conservative Government currently in power over there, blindly.

The Telegraph is wrong, btw, not surprisingly, since a spokesperson on the issue has stated that 'This was done to send a Message, to the Guardian, to Greenwald, to put a stop to them writing about this story'.

So, there we have it, from the Horse's Mouth so to speak. The REAL reason for persecuting an assistant to a Jouralist. There was not 'more to it'. It was not 'less sinister than we think'. In fact is even more sinister than we thought.

Surely now that we have this statement no Democrat would think of supporting this Third World Dictatorship behavior??



Look I asked a simple question, a question people around the world from South America to Europe to here are asking today. 'When did it become a CRIME to assist two well respected Journalists in the writing of a news story?

[Egnever]

136. Ahaha A spoksman on the issue!

I love that you know better than to link where you got that bullshit from. Cause then you would be faced with this gem from the same article...

"Greenwald told the New York Times that Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden to Poitras and to acquire from Poitras a different set of materials for delivery to Greenwald"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130819

[sabrina 1]

184. What is your point? There was no crime, the UK has acknowledged they did what they did

to intimidate Greenwald. That's it, just as many people suspected.

You're linking to stuff that has no bearing on why he was robbed, threatened and held against his will.

Now we have confirmation that there was no CRIME therefore there was no reason to detain him at all.

Picking up source material for a journalist, to assist him in his work, is NOT A CRIME.

Nor is it a crime for a journalist, Greenwald in this case, to publish material obtained from a Whistle Blower regardless of how the WB obtained it.

He was detained to intimidate his partner period , so you can stop trying to find a crime now, there was none.

[Maedhros]

290. If you defend a government's actions

when they use an overly-broad interpretation of an anti-terrorism law to detain a journalist and confiscate his personal effects because he may be in possession of information that may embarrass that government, then you are an Authoritarian.

Stop denying it. Regardless of whether you think Miranda is in possession of "stolen" documents or not, if you were Liberal or Progressive you would be appalled at the abuse of the law in this way. Liberals and Progressives have historically stood against these kinds of government over-reach, and Conservatives and Authoritarians have historically tried to justify them.

[sweetloukillbot]

104. Bush and Cheney influenced a law passed in another country before they were selected? n/t

[morningfog]

69. Do you think Miranda might have been engaging in terrorism?

Do you think the UK thought that?

[East Coast Pirate]

79. And you're OK with that?

[KittyWampus]

116. Miranda is not a journalist.

[morningfog]

122. Is he a terrorist, in your opinion?

[sabrina 1]

171. He was doing nothing illegal. His partner is a journalist and he was assisting him. So again

where is the crime in assisting a Journalist by picking up and delivering material that the Journalist received from a source??

Answer, since I'm not getting one. There WAS no Crime. The release without charges proves that.

Aside from that we know now WHY he was detained, so it's okay to stop trying to find a crime, there was none.

British spokesperson, who refused to give his name, stated that Miranda was detained in order to INTIMIDATE his partner into becoming silent on the issue of possible wrongdoing on the part of the Government.

There could not possibly be a worse reason for doing what was done to Miranda.

[Maedhros]

292. Whether he is a journalist or not is irrelevant.

The word "journalist" doesn't appear in the Constitution. What is protected is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the freedom to speak and publish what one wants. The Constitution does not restrict this freedom to a specific class or occupation, but grants it to all people involved in publication of ideas.

I truly question your motives in demonizing Manning, Assange, Snowden, Greenwald and now Miranda. You certainly have no love for our Constitutional rights, since you argue at every turn that they should not be used.

[rhett o rick]

301. He is a potential threat to the authoritarian state and should be punished accordingly.

Thank God (or Cheney) for the Patriot Act. A tyrants dream.

[morningfog]

44. I have seen not one shred of evidence of terrorism.

[sabrina 1]

21. We have a few here sadly. Journalism = Terrorism. It has since Bush began this 'war on terror'.

[longship]

23. Flame bait post.

Sorry, Mr. Pitt. Not going to play this game.

I still respect you a lot. But I do not especially like posts which seem to encourage chair throwing disagreements.

You are better than this. If you have an argument, present with passion, but with rationality.

I see this post, and the many like it here, as throwing the first chair.

It's an attempt to stir the pot, not bring on cogent and reasonable discourse. That's too bad.

Sorry. I cannot support your methodology.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. well Will, as you can see there are a handful here who do believe in detaining journalist and don't

believe in the free press and by some strange coincidence they seem to be the same people who support the strong surveillance state.
Now that's something to find on a liberal/progressive discussion forum, isn't it?

[sabrina 1]

32. They are unfamiliar with the laws on Journalism and assume that when a journalist uses material

that is in the public's interest to know that JOURNALIST is 'breaking the law'. Ignorance of the law appears to be rampant. It's either that or they don't care about the law.

[sweetloukillbot]

109. Laws of Journalism?

Where are these "Laws of Journalism" written? Because I wrote for one of the largest newspapers in America for 10 years and never heard about these "Laws of Journalism".

[sabrina 1]

163. You never read the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution? You are unaware of

the many court decisions, including the SC, regarding the rights of the Press? And you spent ten years as a journalist?

No wonder we have journalists who seem to think they need to just follow orders rather than report the actual news.

In fact the Press has been referred to often as the 'Fourth Estate'. A press free to report the news absent Government interference is not only protected by the law, it is essential to any democracy.

But since you were never aware of the legal protections for journalists, and now you're not a journalist anymore, I guess it won't help you to know that as a journalist, you were afforded legal protections.

[sweetloukillbot]

169. Oh, I'm aware of legal protections of journalists under the 1st Amendment

I wasn't aware that the Bill of Rights applied for Brazilian citizens who weren't actually part of the press, in countries other than the United States. Thanks for the information!

Edit to fix a typo: Because I acknowledge corrections to my story!

[sabrina 1]

181. So what was the crime committed by Miranda? I would think that as a journalist you would

be even more interested in getting an answer to the question the whole world now seems to be asking.

I am NOT a journalist, but I have researched the story and I have found the answer to that question finally.

The answer is there was no crime. There is no law that was violated by someone travelling to pick up some source material for one journalist to deliver to another journalist..

How do we know this? Because we have confirmation of it from the perps themselves.

First he was released without charges after having being detained and threatened for 9 hours and after his possessions were stolen from him. He is back in a country that would not comply with any extradition requests from the US or the UK, due to their human rights records for one thing. So if they wanted him, they knew they better hold him then. But they didn't, because there was no crime.

Second, the UK, through a spokesperson who has a number instead of a name, told us that what was done to Miranda was done ONLY to intimidate his partner.

So,the UK was acting like a third world type dictatorship, which explains the outrageous treatment of an innocent person including the theft of his possessions.

~~~~~~

Now to your other point. I'm never impressed by a style we see so often on the Internet.

That is, putting words in other people's mouths in order to sound, well, I'm never sure what the intent is.

So, let's correct the words you attempted to put in mine and get to the facts.

I have seen no one, certainly not me, on this forum claim that Miranda was a journalist or that US law applied to other countries.

However, Britain and most other civilized nations DO have similar laws that protect innocent people from the kind of thing that happened in the UK to Miranda.

My point, and no one else seems to have had a problem understanding it, was that Greenwald is a journalist, that what he has done so far is perfectly legal and that his partner assisting him, is ALSO perfectly legal.

Greenwald is the target here, not Miranda. But the UK did one of the most vile things a country can do to an innocent person, they USED him to get to his partner.

I believe this imay be against International Law. To use family members to try to get to someone else.

Anyhow, there is no more need to speculate, we know why they did it so anyone who was trying to find some way to defend it by accusing Miranda of wrong-doing, can stop trying.

The UK has admitted why they did it and what they did was reprehensible, even worse than we thought.

[sweetloukillbot]

186. I'm not terribly familiar with British law but it is much less "free" than our law

Britain doesn't have presumption of innocence as I understand it, and it's libel laws are completely fucked up. Press freedoms are much different there, as exemplified by the Guardian immediately turning over their copies of all the Snowden docs to Whitehall. They have a much greater surveillance state - I assume as a result of the Troubles. They were dealing with terrorists in horrible ways way before we even conceived of Gitmo - even the law that Miranda was held under predates 9/11.

I'll grant that the law is fucked up and it was abused in some ways - they didn't need to keep Miranda for 9 hours, and I'm sure they did that to fuck with him because they could. But at the same time, he was in possession of classified files and as I read somewhere else last night, that does fall under the umbrella of terrorism in that law. Now why they were just sweating him out and didn't arrest him I don't know, maybe because they couldn't decrypt the files and prove something immediately so they had to let him go? But I don't think he was completely innocent and I don't think he was a journalist or entitled to journalist's protections - which it sounds like don't really exist in the UK anyhow.

I've been critical of Snowden and Greenwald's methods from the get-go, but if they do get laws like this anti-terrorism crap changed, or get more transparency to FISA and the NSA, or get the Patriot Act repealed or limited, then yay! Some good came out of this bullshit. And visible actions like this could conceivably force these changes.

But I still don't like their methods and I don't think it is ethical journalism.

[Mojorabbit]

201. We have no way of knowing if he had classified files or not. The nyt reporter inserted

a line saying he did with no source behind it.

[sweetloukillbot]

226. Why are you keeping on that point?

1) There are multiple attributions in the paragraph. I'd expect it was left out to avoid redundancy, especially considering the entire graf is paraphrased.
2) Anything facts provided in the story would be confirmed by the writer, notated for the editor, copy editor and slot editor (at least) to verify. If it wasn't confirmed it would be removed. That's how newspapers work.
3) While Greenwald has tweeted that he never said that, he hasn't demanded a retraction. And the NYT has not published a retraction after two days.
3) The updated version of the story released on Monday included the attribution.

Frankly, the obsession over "That statement isn't attributed so the New York Times made it up" is borderline woo to me.

[TM99]

229. Because it is a valid point, that's why.

1) If they wanted to avoid redundancy a single mentioning of 'Greenwald said' would have sufficed not the several already there.
2) You have proof that no newspaper or news organization has ever, never published facts which could not be verified yet were printed? I am all ears. I can certainly provide a few where they did publish things that were not accurate.
3) So just because no retraction was demanded or given, it automatically makes it 'true'. Seriously?
4) Or was the updated version simply altered. There is a wonderful little NYT article about OWS, a bridge, and the first read through followed by an updated version which was a very different version of reality. I will let you source out that one on your own.

The only 'woo' being spewed is by those who do pretzel contortions of logic and reality to prove something that is not proven or provable at this time.

[sweetloukillbot]

230. I'd think that if Greenwald felt he had been libeled by the Times in a doctored quote

He'd be up in fucking arms demanding a retraction. Because he gets up in fucking arms about people quoting his words directly. The fact that he isn't about this is telling.

And I'm explaining to you how newspapers work - I never said it was perfect, but when mistakes are made corrections are issued - and they aren't being issued in this situation.

The most current information available from a reliable reporter is that the information was from the Snowden documents. If that isn't true then the person who granted the interview and stated that should be making sure that a correction is made - since it is an important point in the narrative.

[TM99]

233. I disagree that Greenwald would be

'fucking up in arms'. He is not as 'hysterical' as poster on DU would seem to like to make him out to be. Given this happened but days ago, I suspect there may be more pressing matters. He did post his own blog which I quote to another poster on this topic. He details the facts of the encounter between his spouse and the Brits. There are some discrepancies between his account and the NYT.

I am quite aware of how newspapers work. I was copy editor for mine in college. That being the case, I am sure many of us are still waiting for the correction from the New York Times to this day for the 'false information' they gave during the run up to the Iraq War. Have they done that yet?

Whether it is actual leaked information or not (and even that source you are referencing does not state definitively what exactly was or was not on those encrypted drives), the Brits abused their authority in detaining a journalist's spouse on 'terrorism' reasons (that was the order they held him under), confiscated his belongings, and acted with intimidation. If Miranda broke a British law or was a terrorist, they would not have let him go free at the nine hour mark.

[questionseverything]

248. NYT totally botched the acorn

story,and helped defund a librel organization that <gasp> wanted poor peops to vote

and wasnt there a problem with their coverage before the iraq war?

they do not have all the credibility you are giving them

[eilen]

328. The Guardian did not "immediately" turn over copies

see this article: [link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters|

The British called the US when it saw Miranda's name on the flight-- who wants to bet they expected them to confiscate the man's electronic data.

"The White House spokesman confirmed that Britain alerted the US authorities after Miranda's name appeared on a passenger manifest of a flight from Berlin to Heathrow on Sunday morning. "I think that is an accurate interpretation of what a heads up is," Earnest said."

[sweetloukillbot]

332. Different situation

And I did misstate as welll. They were approached earlier under prior restraint - the Guardian's editor posted a story about it yesterday. Home Office showed up and demanded they destroy the files. The editor complied, but said it didn't really matter because they had copies throughout their bureaus in other countries where British Intelligence couldn't demand their destruction.

[Maedhros]

295. The Constitution does not give rights to specific classes of people,

such as U.S. citizens.

The Constitution limits what the Government can do. Therefore it cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone, even Brazilian citizens.

[Number23]

333. Welcome to DU!

I see you've met The Crew. I'm sure any questions you may have about the diminished state of DU and how that may have happened have now been eradicated.

[sweetloukillbot]

334. I've been around for ages - I just never have anything to say n/t

[Number23]

335. Well, I hope the unbreakable wall of ignorance you've encountered in this thread

encourages you to speak up more often.

[sweetloukillbot]

336. Thanks! n/t

[rhett o rick]

302. How do you feel about the Patriot Act? Do you think Pres Obama should use it to

harass journalists or others?

[sweetloukillbot]

305. I actually despise the Patriot Act but don't see what it has to do with British law,

Or these International Laws of Journalism.

[uhnope]

59. funny that he's not a journalist and yeah let's have anybody traffic anything thru airports. Yay!

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. you really don't believe in liberal western democracy, do you?

[uhnope]

180. oh, another candidate for logic class. But liberal western democracy is rule of law

and Greenwald's boyfriend is an illegal trafficker

[Douglas Carpenter]

188. liberal western democracy means a free, uninhibited and adversarial press - It means the right of

journalist to publish that which the government does not want published. Even in Saudi Arabia the press is free to publish information the government wants published. The idea of an all encompassing surveillance state is anathema to those of us in the liberal-democratic tradition.

[Egnever]

29. Good lord

You are losing it.

You used to post insightful well researched stuff. Now you seem to have devolved to warfle warfle derp

Saddens me to see it.

[dawg]

39. "warfle warfle derp" is more intelligent than any argument I have seen for the opposing ...

point of view.

I think many of us are just stunned beyond belief that so many of our fellow Democrats are okay with the effective neutering of both the first and fourth amendments.

[Egnever]

42. LOL so you think the first amendment gives you the right to posses stolen intelligence?

Weeee the ignorance on this board is staggering.

[morningfog]

47. Find another place to post then.

[Egnever]

48. Nah the entertainment value here is too high.

[Number23]

106. Is that your call to make?

[morningfog]

118. Nope. Just a helpful suggestion.

If only I had such power!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

254. in that case, might i suggest that you follow your own suggestion? nt

[morningfog]

270. By all means, thank you.

[dawg]

51. So, you think the government can just "classify" any and all information it deems inconvenient?

Fuck that shit!

I pay for those fucking agencies with my tax dollars. I pay their fucking salaries. They work for me, I'm not their damned "subject". I've got a right to know what the Hell they are doing.

[Egnever]

52. Then you better tell them to change the laws

I am sure they will bow down and do it since you are their boss

[dawg]

60. What laws? The secret ones?

You think the concept of the citizen being the boss of the government is funny? Do you even understand the concept of government by consent of the governed?

[cui bono]

197. Exactly right. And to see someone laughing about the demise of this experiment so joyfully...

is just sickening.

I just can't believe the attitude of some people on this board, with their flippant posts mocking those who are standing up for our rights, and there by mocking our democracy. Shameful really. And they're so fucking self-righteous and they haven't got a clue what they are standing for and defending, as evidenced by their claims of being sick and tired of being called "NSA apologists".

Ugh.

[WilliamPitt]

111. ^^^ This righ here ^^^

is the weaksauce, distilled.

For clarity, I mean your post, Egnever.

If you don't get it, likely you never will. And that's a damned shame.

[Celefin]

203. Of the people, by the people, for the people

Government by consent.
So, yes.

[progressoid]

318. derp a derp

If he possessed stolen information, then they shouldn't have let him go.

Golly, we're gonna lose the war on TERRA!!1! if we continue to be so lax.

[backscatter712]

218. They call themselves "Democrats", but they oppose the core values that Democrats should be upholding

If I were Skinner, I wouldn't tolerate them here.

[dawg]

35. You will find plenty of people here to support such totalitarian tactics, I'm afraid.

I'm not one of them; in fact, I hold them in contempt. But they are here and they will be happy to explain to you that "It's the law."

[WilliamPitt]

37. I am just going to assume that everyone scolding me in this thread

has their hand up.

Shame on you.

Yes, you.

[dawg]

45. Will ...

shortly after the 9-11 attacks, polls gave George W. Bush a 90% approval rate. That 90% did not include you and it did not include me. But I fear it was more of a revealing statistic than either of us would like to admit.

And it's unfortunate, because this thing is happening. The window of opportunity for closing it is closing fast.

[one_voice]

49. You know it's possible to hold two separate...

thoughts at once.

Like this:

He should not have been held.

Your OP left a lot to be desired. It was something expected of someone in junior high.

You're supposed to be a writer, and this was the best you could come up with?

And you wag a finger with shame on you when you're taken to task for

warfle warfle warfle stolen documents warfle warfle.

Really?

[WilliamPitt]

63. Really.

"warfle warfle" is all I hear when I hear people cheer the detention of significant others of journalists tied to leakers.

Leakers obtain documents the people need to know about. Journalists publish those documents, a la the Pentagon Papers, so the people can know the degree to which their government has gone off the rails. Both serve an absolutely vital purpose. Cheering when the significant other of a journalist is detained UNDER A FUCKING TERRORISM LAW is a disgrace.

Reflexively polishing the administration's apple is getting to be a bad habit around here, and after this most recent disgrace, anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves...and if you actually believe or try to argue that the administration wasn't hip to this jive, I have a great big bridge to sell you right over scenic San Francisco bay.

Fascists are not all on the right. Fascists suck up to power in whatever form it presents itself.

warfle fucking warfle.

[one_voice]

70. Anger issues...

much? You really don't like being taken to task.

warfle fucking warfle backacha.

[WilliamPitt]

73. Attack the person and not the argument

Very Pro of you.

[one_voice]

84. I didn't attack you...

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I did attack the way in which you delivered you message which was beyond immature. I agreed with your issue.

You came back at me full of anger as if I stole your last potato chip.

I'm a stay at home wife/mom. You're a writer, mostly politics, I'd say you're much closer to being a Pro than me. Deflection much?

[Whisp]

312. ....'as if I stole your last potato chip'.

I think you broke my warfle.

[truebrit71]

237. Makes Sense, no...?

[VanillaRhapsody]

177. So do you feel that the launch codes for the nuclear program need to be made public?

Isn't that the kind of transparency you expect from the "govt you pay for with your tax dollars" and that you are the boss of? Shouldn't they be making you aware of the location of all the secret bases and the "undisclosed location" and all the Undercover agents names and locations all over the world. Shouldn't you be informed of all of that and more?

[Celefin]

209. Uh... no.

Leakers obtain documents the people need to know about. Journalists publish those documents, a la the Pentagon Papers, so the people can know the degree to which their government has gone off the rails.

Nuclear launch codes, locations of secret bases and names of undercover agents do not fall under the category of stuff people need to know about. Why? These things are not illegal per se (probably with the exception of secret bases serving an illegal government program). Also, revealing them would indeed endanger government employees and national security.

Publishing classified material that has been classified to cover up illegal (or simply embarrassing) government activity does not fall under this definition. This is the main reason a responsible leak takes so long - you check all the documents for content that would endanger someone and redact those passages.

[sibelian]

286. PLONK.

[Hydra]

55. Ya, and it was a LOT of hands

I learn new things about our party and administration(via their mouthpieces here) every day that I have trouble believing.

When the FUCK did the Repubs take our party over??

[NuttyFluffers]

141. when the façade of winning mattered more

that's when the party was taken over. anyone who says "get in line" already sacrificed thinking and ethics to obedience.

you will know them by their works.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. I used to think the term "authoritarian left" meant hardline communist types who unapologetically

believe that during the "dictatorship of the proletariat" civil liberties by necessity have to be limited until true socialism is established, But we see here many people who would probably be more in the centrist or moderately liberal Democratic Party territory who simply do not believe in a free and uninhibited press and do believe in a strong and powerful surveillance state which is enforced by the strong arm of a police state. What do you call that? They sure the hell don't believe in liberal western democracy.

[HardTimes99]

149. OT somewhat but the hardline communists need civil liberties as much or more than anyone else, in

order to sell their newspapers at rallies. (Sometimes I think selling newspapers is their sole raison d'etre All joking aside, some of the best critiques of capitalism and its excesses come from these far-left media platforms.

[WillyT]

50. Forgive Them Will... They Haven't A Clue...

[michigandem58]

56. Shame on you, Mr. Pitt

You are grossly misrepresenting this incident. I suspect it's unintentional and based on ignorance and a knee jerk reaction. But as a journalist yourself, I would hope you'd inform yourself before posting such nonsense.

"The deeper you delve the more it seems that Mr Miranda was deeply enmeshed in Mr Greenwald's work with Edward Snowden, the whistleblower, and a legitimate subject of concern for UK border authorities.

First, let us not forget that Mr Greenwald was the recipient of security documents stolen by Mr Snowden. In interviews, Mr Greenwald has said he at one stage planned to pass these documents to Mr Miranda.

In addition, The Guardian – after updating its original story last night – has now admitted that Mr Miranda was detained while travelling on tickets paid for by the paper. Why, if Mr Miranda were merely the partner of Mr Greenwald, would this be the case? According to The New York Times, it is because he was essentially acting as a document mule, carrying sensitive information with him as he travelled to and from a meeting with Laura Poitras, a documentary maker who has worked on the Snowden leaks..

So while Mr Miranda no doubt spent a torrid time in a small room at Heathrow, he was by no means merely the victim of a plot to intimidate his partner. The British security services had a legitimate reason – and a duty – to detain and question the man."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100231572/david-mirandas-detention-is-not-as-sinister-as-it-sounds-but-our-sweeping-anti-terror-laws-are/

[tnlefty]

57. Uh, no not raising my hand...

I want to know what my government is up to no matter which party is in power, and that's what I thought journalists were supposed to do.

[Old and In the Way]

61. Question.

So where is the Republican House majority to limit this Executive behaviour? IIRC, it was the same Party that gave us TSA and DHS under the previous Republican President.

.Anyone really think that Obama had the political capital to dismantle this and the NSA? Seriously? How about electing an overwhelming majority of progressive Democrats because I lived through 1 bogus impeachment exercise the last time a Republican House majority impeached a Democratic President for having consensual sex with a female.Too many people here are willing to torch this guy when the real problem is we have a divided government with one party who is willing to play politics as long as it will help their next election results.

[HooptieWagon]

137. News flash....

The NSA is in the Executive Branch. All it takes for reform is for POTUS to pick up the phone and say "you're fired". The republicans aren't blocking a goddam thing. The NSA is Spying On Everyone because thats the order Obama gave them.

[cui bono]

199. I believe Obama is the one who pushed to make all the BushCo illegal wiretapping "legal".

So let's not blame the Republicans again for Obama's failings.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

68. if they are involved in criminal activity, then yes.

[WilliamPitt]

75. So detaining them under a terrorism law is cool with you?

Really?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

86. I'd have to have way more information before I could make a case one way or the other

I believe this controversy is in day 2? I am willing to withold judgement a tiny bit longer before making broad declarations.

Most of my posts on this subject today have been "devil's advocate" types.

It is not beyond imagination that this was an abuse of power by the British government. It is also not beyond imagination that there is more to this that would absolve the British security apparatus and indict the young man who was stopped. We shall see.

[WilliamPitt]

91. .

[backscatter712]

219. Awesome!

I'll have to put that pic in the category of "Implied Facepalms"



Here's the canonical one:

[DirkGently]

80. What about journalists who embarrass "our" people?

Isn't that different?

No?













Huh.

[felix_numinous]

81. Arrest all the leakers and journalists!!

What America needs is good old fashioned propaganda. Who wants to know the nasty details of war crimes, torture, or if someone is watching us! It's bad for mental health, and it makes the party look bad, not to mention our trusted intelligent agencies-- in fact we need MORE spying! No one can really be trusted these days, especially, well you know -- those people-- you know who I mean they need to all be rounded up, and anyone -associated--with these whistleblower types. They're ruining our good and spotless reputation!

So I have both hands and both feet up (practicing the fetal position, you never know when I have to adopt that position) .

Cheers!

[kenny blankenship]

90. Arrest means a formal charge

but they don't want that. WHat they want is to terrify, demoralize and disrupt journalists. Don't expect actual arrests. Expect detentions that go on ...well not indefinitely but for a really long time. Wouldn't surprise me if the next interrogation of a journalist (or spouse) takes place in a helicopter hovering over a large body of water. Easy to get information that way. Threatening them with prison rape -as in the present case- can also unlock tongues.

[HardTimes99]

128. This reminds me of the way Bush and Cheney outed Valerie Plame to retaliate against Joseph Wilson

for his apostasy. Bush and Cheney really had nothing against Plame and Wilson per se, but they definitely wanted to use the outing of Plame as a 'demonstration project' to other putative whistle blowers.

This incident functions the same way as a message to all real journalists that they risk not only their lives and liberty, but also the lives and liberty of their loved ones, simply in order to practice their profession.

[HardTimes99]

119. Now that the illustrious defender of our civil liberties and our security Dianne Feinstein has

proposed that the government license journalists (so that the government has a list of 'approved journalists,' I guess), I propose we re-instate the loyalty oath. In fact, stealing a page from Joseph Heller, I propose that everyone must first sign a preliminary loyalty oath before he or she can be allowed to sign the real loyalty oath:

Major Major had bought the dark glasses and false mustache in Rome in a final, futile attempt to
save himself from the swampy degradation into which he was steadily sinking. First there had been
the awful humiliation of the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade, when not one of the thirty or forty people
circulating competitive loyalty oaths would even allow him to sign. Then, just when that was
blowing over, there was the matter of Clevinger's plane disappearing so mysteriously in thin air
with every member of the crew, and blame for the strange mishap centering balefully on him
because he had never signed any of the loyalty oaths.

Catch-22

[felix_numinous]

134. Third way, fourth way

Whose counting? It's the Right Way!! We don't need no steenking free press!! We can figure out the truth from privatized corporate schools-- I heard they rock!!

Then loyalty oaths won't be necessary-- we will all believe what we are told and all will be well. (I'm a visionary, gifted with foresight)

[OnyxCollie]

164. Government approved journalists

In the Third Reich, "contributing by word, news report, or picture to the intellectual content of
newspapers or political periodicals" is a "public profession"; the "contributors are called
editors."33 Admission to the vocation of editor is granted through membership in the National
Association of the German Press, which is a corporate body of public law; registration must be
denied "if the Minister of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda objects." Moreover, "no one
may be an editor" unless he (a) is a German citizen; has (b) not lost his civic rights and the
qualification to hold public office; 34 (c) is of Aryan descent and not married to a person of
non-Aryan descent; (d) has reached the age of 21; (e) is competent; (f) has had professional
training; (g) possesses the qualifications required for intellectually influencing public
opinion.

Editors are under the obligation to withhold from publication everything which:

1. Confuses selfish with common interest in a manner misleading to the public;
2. Can weaken the strength of the German people nationally or internationally, the German
nation's will toward unity, German defensive capacity, German culture or German business, or
may hurt the religious feelings of others;
3. Is offensive to the honor and dignity of a German;
4. Illegally injures the honor or the wellbeing of another person, hurts his reputation, or makes
him ridiculous or contemptible;
5. Is for other reasons indecent.85

We believe that with the Editor Act we have laid the foundations for the creation of the
freest newspaper profession on earth. The contention that we have linked the journalist too
closely to the state, does therefore not correspond to the facts.37

Marx, F. M. (1935). Propaganda and dictatorship. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 179, 211-218.

[KoKo]

89. 39 Raised Hands? or is it just Recommends.. confusing..n/t

[dkf]

92. Great edits.

[WilliamPitt]

93. Thanks.

I appreciate the function.

[dkf]

94. I agreed first time around but the warfle warfle is so perfect!

Still laughing.

[WilliamPitt]

96. Stole it from South Park.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. Recommended.

[Zorra]

112. kick nt

[HardTimes99]

123. Brilliant post and rhetorical tour de force. And your words of

condemnation badly needed saying and repeating.

My sincere compliments.

[blkmusclmachine]

124. I've seen the enemy. He is us.

9/11 was just the excuse.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

129. Wait a sec,...does Hannity call himself a "journalist"?

[WilliamPitt]

132. .

[Spitfire of ATJ]

146. That's O'Reilly....

Overstuffed.

[enigmatic]

135. When people place Politicians and Political Parties ahead of ideals

Everything is fair game; everything.

[HardTimes99]

140. I get your point but I think this goes beyond the mere worship of politicians

and political parties to something approaching blind genuflection in front of raw power, unchecked by any due process and responding solely to the arbitrary and capricious will of those suckling at the teat of authority.

Really depressing seeing people on DU defend the Brits' conduct. There is no excuse for this shit. And Mr. Pitt shows a remarkable diplomacy, tact and restraint in his language and choice of words.

[enigmatic]

144. I'm not surprised by it, sadly.

And I've disagreed w/ Will many times over the years but he's absolutely right on this. No free press, and you have no unchecked power to Authority.

That so many here are willing to give it away to keep the illusion of a party they vote into power is horrible, but not surprising.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. People like that treat act like they're in a sports bar.

[Rex]

139. Well duh Will! Get your ass in the van!

You got some splaining to do!

Where were you when the titanic sank? Think hard on this one...

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Tonight they admitted it, they were joined at the hip

Now I got my own personal scandal to go follow. That thread ooohhh boy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

143. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe

Glenn Greenwald is a journalist who presents news that the Bosses don't want to be seen.

[whatchamacallit]

145. K&fookingR!

[awoke_in_2003]

147. My hand is not raised. nt

[Safetykitten]

152. It will be STUNNING when the next republican is in the WH and the response for

all this will be so convoluted, so insane, so freaking crazy it will give you a headache.

President____________IS SPYING ON US! OUTRAGE! But I had NO IDEA that it was THIS BAD! I just THOUGHT it was people like, well...OTHER people! WHY WAS THIS NOT DISCUSSED?!!!

[joshcryer]

154. And the PATRIOT Act is patriotic.

I think the broad powers of both Schedule 7 and the PATRIOT Act should be shot down. To think either one of them are what they purport to be is naive.

[JEB]

160. Gotta luv the transparency

of the global repression of truth by corporate sponsored governments. Smells like International fascism.

[moondust]

170. The fascists at Scotland Yard seem to disagree.

David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard

~

Scotland Yard, which has not revealed on what grounds he was detained, said in a statement on Monday night that the "examination" of Mr Miranda was "subject to a detailed decision-making process".

"The procedure was reviewed throughout to ensure the examination was both necessary and proportionate," it added.

"Our assessment is that the use of the power in this case was legally and procedurally sound."

"Contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended."

~

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. I forgot, in fiction, it's a great plot device, in real life it's damn scary

[Warren DeMontague]

185. No shit. I guess no one remembers the Pentagon Papers.

[Ichingcarpenter]

189. I think we need to go back to

reviewing what really happen on 911 and how what Wesley Clark called 'a national coup of foreign policy'

If one hasn't noticed the same neocon actors or their subordinates are still in government positions either directly or in sub contracting. such as The Chertof group for example. never mind the Carlyle Group's hold on national security matters.


Watch this video, because the science is there and new information is presented by the author that exposed 'the October surprise' during Reagan's rule..




http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/149560/Behind_the_Smoke_Curtain_The_911_Fable_of_the_Pentagon_Attack__Barbara_Honegger/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Disclosetv+(Disclose.tv+-+New+Videos)


Also
Edward Snowden accused the National Security Agency of targeting reporters who wrote critically about the government after the 9/11 attacks and warned it was “unforgivably reckless” for journalists to use unencrypted email messages when discussing sensitive matters.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316751-snowden-nsa-targeted-journalists-critical-of-government-after-911


I'm afraid that there is a conspiracy against the truth coming out not just 911 but on the whole system and that's why journalist are attacked and will continued to be attacked.

[chimpymustgo]

227. Oh my. I'd never seen this before: A legit public figure peeling back the PNAC onion.

You should post this separately - again - if you have already.

It all ties together: the war-mongering Empire, the all-knowing state. The "Pearl Harbor-type event" that gave them the keys to this kingdom we now live in.

[Ichingcarpenter]

234. The second video is

the one that ties it.
I will give the you tube link this time.

[chimpymustgo]

304. Thank you so much!! You really should repost these in an OP!

[Ichingcarpenter]

308. LOL..... thanks but

you know what would happen if I did

I hoping others will see it here.

[chimpymustgo]

322. You might be right - but it IS Wes Clark, after all. Legit, with lots of fans here.

I think it's well past the time to lift the ban on the discussion. Too much evidence of government lies and cover-ups. Quite frankly, you'd almost be nuts to believe anything they say is "the official order"!

[Ichingcarpenter]

324. Well I think her reasoning

on why the pentagon attack mattered for them was brilliant. It was the Pearl harbor/military installation they needed for justification and then she documents them saying

WE NOW HAVE A WAR ON TERROR.


Its a long video but well worth the time. It tied some unanswered questions up for me about the Helicopter pad and other issues I had.

She has a reputable background too.

My Dad use to work at Andrews AFB and the Pentagon. We lived in Arlington so he commuted to both places. I've been there many times.

[chimpymustgo]

325. Thanks, I was the Wes Clark video, not the second one. Will do so later tonight!!

[cui bono]

190. I agree except for "getting to be a bad habit around here"...

It's been a bad habit around here for a long, long time now.

About 4 1/2 years.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

195. Hand raised.

I think there are situations under which journalists and significant others of journalists should be detained, charged and imprisoned, the same as anyone else.

It is not clear to me that David Miranda met any of those causes, but that's not what you asked.

A case against his detention would need to be specific, rather than generic.

[Whisp]

196. ...

[Whisp]

198. All in favour of scammers like GG, please raise your IQs. n/t

[burnodo]

211. You must feel so clever!

aren't you precious

[treestar]

224. It depends on what evidence there is

and what they are doing.

From whence comes the idea that journalists do whatever the hell they want. Criminal laws apply to everyone. There's no journalist pass.

If the significant other is involved in something, they are involved in it. What Bullshit.

[msanthrope]

225. Will, can you imagine Woodward and Bernstein sending their spouses to meet Mark Felt?

What would you have thought of Scott Ritter using his wife to courier documents from Iraq?

Is this what professional journalists do? Use their family members to mule information?

[Bluenorthwest]

239. Factually speaking, Carl got divorced right during the story breaking and after married Nora Ephron

Bob married for the 3d highly Sanctified time in 1989. Not sure if he was married or 'between Sanctifications' during Watergate. Of course Bob uses unnamed sources like most of us use running water so documents are not really a concern for him.
Scott Ritter is not married at all, to my knowledge, but he has had some issues with the law regarding underage girls. Some say he was framed. Others say he was guilty.
I have a hard time imagining that any of those men had trusting relationships with the women they divorced or met online or whatever. Do you see them as paragons?

[msanthrope]

259. Scott Ritter is married and the father of twin teenage girls. As he was Will's

co-author, I used him as an example of someone that Will had worked with, someone who had handled classified materials, and had engaged in a writing project that was anti-administration and risky. I make no comment (on this thread) as to the charges against him.

I seriously doubt Scott Ritter used his wife to mule classified documents.

As for Woodward and Bernstein, it seems that even if they do not take marriage seriously, they take their jobs seriously enough that they didn't send their wives, mistresses, or girlfriends to do their work.

Again....do you know of another serious journalist who asked a spouse to mule documents? I am reminded of the whole Ollie North/Fawn Hall episode, but perhaps that is not an apt comparison.

[Whisp]

313. Very good questions, but you probably won't get a reply

from the OP, maybe a Sesame Street pic but no serious reply because there isn't one.

[hueymahl]

281. That is an amazing, irrelevant and totally distracting straw man you are developing there.

Well done!!!

So, to be clear, besides being a gay liberterian/republican/paulite, a criminal, a snowden sympathizer, not a real journalist and not trustworthy, he is also a terrible husband who doesn't care about the safety of his spouse.

Glad you cleared that up.

[msanthrope]

282. No--it's a question. What reputable journalist expects his spouse to mule stolen documents

and then whines when the spouse is caught?

You get the idea that Greenwald never read a LeCarre novel in his life.

[hueymahl]

288. Hey, guess what, this is not fiction, this is not a game.

And good job of continuing to blame the victim. You get high marks for consistency.

[msanthrope]

289. What victim? nt

[TM99]

285. Well played!

[RobinA]

228. Totally In Favor

In fact, I hope they do it again. I hope they get someone really big. Anderson Cooper detained at Heathrow. In fact, I hope they overstep themselves right off the cliff for all to see. If that's what it takes to bring this issue front and center even to people who don't follow politics, I think a journalist or two can take one for the team. I've been saying for years that it's going to take a major crash and burn to wake people up. The sooner it gets really ugly the sooner this mess will start being repaired. Detain, away!

[tridim]

231. GG is "on the right". He is a Paul supporter.

Honestly Will, I'm shocked that you're falling for the Greenwald clown show.

[truebrit71]

235. You have successfully managed to completely, and entirely miss the point...

...

[tridim]

250. Yes, people who run international scams usually don't have much of a point.

All they care about is the money rolling in.

GG is the scam king, and you and others have fallen for it completely. It's sad.

[truebrit71]

261. ..and again...you miss the point of the OP

....RE-read the OP and then tell me how this has anything to do with anyone's "scams"...i'll give you a hint...it doesn't...

[tridim]

263. I'm not going to K&R as the OP requests.

Because I am not "in favor of detaining journalists or their significant others".

Greenwald is a clown and his significant other is being used by him. They are scammers, not journalists.

[truebrit71]

266. So it's okay to detain a "clown"s significant other if he's "being used"...

..is that right?

Bottom line here, regardless of what you think of Greenwald, the detaining of ANYONE'S partner under terrorism laws, means that person had pretty much better be a fucking terrorist, or the law is being wildly mis-used.

The fact that on a supposedly left-leaning website this has to be pointed out is depressing and somewhat alarming...

[Javaman]

271. by simply replying you are kicking the thread...

but you knew that already, right?

[Jakes Progress]

247. Thank you, William.

Of course asking for logical thinking and intellectual honesty against the DOAC is futile. (Defense of the ADministration Coterie.)

[hlthe2b]

258. How sad that we have a small, determined core of consistent pro-admin policy backers, who ARE...

Incredibly, incredibly sad.

We are losing our civil liberties by leaps and bounds and they can only think of the consequences of criticizing
a Democrat in the WH. Good gawd.

So incredulous does it leave most of us to see these actions defended by self-proclaimed "progressives", is it any wonder some speculate that a few might be paid to post? Seems to me that is giving benevolent benefit of the doubt.

[Fire Walk With Me]

260. Truly stunned at the number of those here who have fallen for and enable W Bush's legacy.

Obviously several are "with us", meaning, with the Bush initiatives which provide for a massive power grab and profit possibilities associated with the cash trough in Iraq. Note that the Bush family owns a 2/3 share in Booz Allen, from whom Snowden retrieved his data. The Bush family recently made $2 billion off of Booz Allen. The Bush family are directly profiting from illegal tapping and storage of your private communications. W Bush has direct access to your private communications and is being paid your tax dollars for the privilege.

And Snowden is the bad guy? And the journalists who spread this are deserving of detention? Snowden gets three felonies for revealing illegal government actions?

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

[DLevine]

262. It's depressing to see any Democrat support such a thing. nt

[Solly Mack]

265. K&R

[RB TexLa]

276. Journalists should get a pass on possession of stolen property? Maybe I should start a blog and

call myself a journalist then.

[TM99]

283. My Gawd, the stupidity on this is mind boggling!

It is not stolen property.

First of all, it is leaked information from the US government's spying agency. The last time I checked, the UK was not involved in oversight of the NSA.

Second of all, it is leaked information just like the Pentagon Papers and numerous other instances of whistle-blowing and investigative journalism.

Finally, it is not the their property, it is ours! Can y'all not fucking get that. The government is beholden to us, the people of the United States. They are keeping programs secret in the name of 'The War on Terror' that are not protecting us but are instead attempting to control us.

This 'property' is mine. It is yours. It is all of ours. I bloody well want it disseminated to all corners of the damned globe in order to stop this little authoritarian surveillance state dead in its tracks. That is why Freedom of the Press is a foundational freedom of this democratic Republic we call the US of A. Without it, bullshit claims about this 'data' being 'their stolen property' is allowed to pass the smell test....which bluntly, it just doesn't!

[hlthe2b]

287. Amazing, isn't it? n/t

[RB TexLa]

293. So you can just take a police car and scream "Why are you chasing me? It's my property!"

And "Can y'all not fucking get that!!!"

[cthulu2016]

300. re: Getting things like what "stolen property" is...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023495343

[TM99]

315. Sigh

Your response made me laugh, and frankly, I am certain that you knew it might. It is not even remotely close to what point was being made.

So as far as red herrings going, it wasn't even a particularly inspiring one, but if you would like to try again with something more serious as a response, I would be glad to discuss it with you rationally.

Thanks.

[RB TexLa]

326. I'll miss out on discussing something with you. Sorry, no way to care.

[bvar22]

296. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Please make this an OP.

[Matariki]

279. This shouldn't even need to be said here of all places.

[George II]

303. Shouldn't you define the reason for the detention before presenting such a black/white proposition?

[Progressive dog]

306. Tell me again why we had to know that

the UK spied on Medvedev or that the NSA spied on Chinese universities. I honestly don't see how that benefits either the UK or USA. In fact, I can see how it might hurt our relations with both Russia and China.

As far as the US running the UK, that is silly. Except for the Royals, UK citizens get to vote for their government.

[woo me with science]

307. K&R

[TeamPooka]

309. K&R!

[sulphurdunn]

327. During the Revolution

about a third of the colonists remained Tory loyalists of the British Crown. Another third were revolutionaries or their sympathizers. And a third were swing supporters of one side or the other depending on who was winning. Nothing much has changed.

[joeybee12]

329. The question no longer, "Is it fascism yet?" but..."How long has it been fascism?"

knr

[jazzimov]

337. If the said "Journalist" was USING

their significant other to smuggle STOLEN Top Secret documents, YES!

How is this different from him smuggling it up his butt or some other "cavity" -

Oh, I can tell you: he talked SOMEONE HE LOVED to do it for him!
This is the LOWEST slime of Human Scum I can imagine. If you want to put yourself in danger, that's one thing, But if you put SOMEONE YOU LOVE in danger.........

I can't tell you how low I feel that Greenwald is. He should NEVER have put his loved one in danger like that.

He is SCUM. He cared more about that "info" than he did about the person he CLAIMED to LOVE. He USED his LOVED ONE.

ASSHOLE!

I can never forgive him for that.

[jazzimov]

338. Will, you have a new child,

would you have put that child in danger for the sake of a few documents?

Seriously, would you have?

[WilliamPitt]

340. That's the stupidest goddam comment in this entire thread

and that is saying something.

[SidDithers]

339. Do many journalists use their spouse/partner...

as a courier of potentially stolen source documents?

Sid

[AsahinaKimi]

341. Dear WilliamPitt...

Could you not sell the Bridge in San Francisco? I am rather fond of it. I hear the Brooklyn Bridge might be a tad better, in worth. Thank you.
signed


A San Francisco Resident.

[MisterP]

342. but it WAS "terrorism under veil of journalism"!

[4bucksagallon]

343. "that the administration wasn't hip to this jive".......

Wow who can argue against that kind of evidence.....I mean it's the smoking gun with video.