dupe

[kpete]

this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023493504

Journalism is not terrorism. Journalism can be enraging to people in power; journalism can sometimes even be frightening to people in power, but journalism is not terrorism. Reporting on what governments do, even when those governments prefer to keep those actions secret, is not terrorism. Terrorism is a real and discrete thing in the world. It is not an all-encompassing term you apply to everything the government doesn't want you to do.

The White House today said it had been given a heads-up in advance that the detention of David Miranda was likely to happen.... The White House went out of their way today to say that it was Britain's decision to detain Glenn Greenwald's partner -- it was not something the US asked Britain to do; and okay fine, but the White House did know about it in advance and it still happened.

We have that kind of special relationship with Britain where if our government were outraged that this detention was going to happen, we could have objected, right? We could have at least asked our dear friends, the British government, to not do this, maybe in the interests of not intimidating the activities of the free press, if not for any other reason. Did our government make any objections when it got advance notice from Britain that this detention was going to happen? Did our government protest? And if not, why not? I tend to think we did not protest, since it went ahead.

I know the US government is not happy about Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald and their reporting about US surveillance. The president said that the disclosures from their source have led to a disorderly debate about these issues and even though we ought to have a debate about these issues, it ought to be more orderly. Fine. But if the United States wants to convince the world that the Glenn Greenwalds and Laura Poitras' of the world are correct when they say the US government is going too far -- if they want to underline and put flashing red lights on that reporting that says that counter-terrorism is being used to justify all sorts of things that are not justified by the actual threat of terrorism, and that in fact have just greenlit gross government overreach and intrusion and intimidation of legitimate activity including journalism -- then putting journalists and their families through marathon interrogations and seizing all their electronics is a really great way to start convincing the world that all that reporting is accurate.

Letting our closest allies do it while we stand silent is the same thing as us doing it. Journalism is not terrorism. Pretending otherwise is outrageous, and ridiculous, and a dangerous affront to who we are as a country and a democracy. It's an absolute outrage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/19/1232435/-Rachel-Maddow-on-David-Miranda-and-the-White-House

[niyad]

1. the very fact that this even has to be stated is an indication of how low this country has sunk.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. OWS and KeystoneXL protests have shown they consider protest to be terrorism.

Journalists were just next on the list.

[HooptieWagon]

3. Just wait until TPP protests.

I have no doubt Obama will call out NG tanks. Kent St will look like a picnic. Those who serve corporate masters have no line they won't cross.

[underthematrix]

4. The information the journalist published

was classified and illegally obtained. Gov'ts have a right to protect state information. Stealing said state information is a crime, which means they have a right to arrest the person who stole it and exposed it.