"Holding classified information for a reporter is not the same as swallowing a bag of heroin for..."

[deurbano]

...a drug dealer."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/21/how-do-you-define-a-terrorist/
How do you define a terrorist?
By Ari Melber

<<…The U.K. does not accuse Miranda of being a terrorist. They knew who he was….Instead, it looks like the U.K. exploited a special power for fighting terrorism in order to harass the partner of a journalist who has been reporting on government surveillance….

And yet here in the U.S., some prominent voices are actually defending the U.K.’s action. First, critics say that because Miranda is not a professional reporter, he shouldn’t have been carrying any materials for The Guardian. Second, there’s the aggressive allegation that because classified material might be on his computer, Miranda is basically a drug mule. New Yorker legal affairs expert Jeffrey Toobin said, ”I don’t want to be unkind, but he was a mule. He was given something, he didn’t know what it was, from one person to pass to another at the other end of an airport. Our prisons are full of drug mules.”

Let’s stop right there.

Holding classified information for a reporter is not the same as swallowing a bag of heroin for a drug dealer. Not only is that common sense – it’s the law. If simply possessing classified information were a crime, I’d be speaking to you from a room full of criminals. In our newsroom, reporters and staff possess classified information and unauthorized government disclosures and materials. Very few significant news stories are based on press releases alone. If you report on the government, sometimes you report on what it’s not telling the public. And as for Miranda’s professional status – it’s totally beside the point! The police were acting on a specific authority for detaining suspected terrorists. From the information provided, it’s clear they abused that power….


By compromising those rights in a fake terrorism investigation, the U.K. actually compromised public safety twice. First by undermining individual liberty, and then by undermining the public trust that is essential for tough policing. This from the nation that gave us Magna Carta. Let’s make sure we don’t follow their lead on this one.>>






[DirkGently]

1. Exactly. +++

[grasswire]

2. A big kick for Ari Melber!!

Lawyer, MSNBC host, smart, snappy dresser. LEFTY.

[Hydra]

3. Toobin the hack does not want to be "unkind"? Sure... n/t

[KittyWampus]

4. it was STOLEN classified information. Damn, the stupid just keeps getting shoveled in here.

[deurbano]

5. Yes, comparing Miranda to a drug mule was not smart.

[totodeinhere]

8. I must have missed the part where it was proved that he possessed stolen information.

n/t

[frylock]

10. so drop the shovel already

[ljm2002]

11. You are so right...

...when you say "the stupid just keeps getting shoveled in here."

Please stop shoveling.

[JDPriestly]

12. Stolen from whom?

The government of the people, by the people, for the people? Or a little clique of folks who want to snoop on our communications, know who our friends are, make sure we don't realize the extent to which they control us with their fearmongering.

Are terrorists a threat? Yes. Do they need to monitor 25% or 75% of the internal electronic communications in the US in order to identify terrorists?

That is absurd.

The surveillance is a power grab. It's good that Snowden made his statements.

[Luminous Animal]

15. "If simply possessing classified information were a crime, I’d be speaking to you from a room full

of criminals."

Apparently, you haven't a clue what investigative reporters do.

[JoeyT]

6. It's also worth noting many of the people defending it because he's not a journalist,

also insist Greenwald isn't a journalist. The combination of it's ok to arrest/harass him because he isn't a journalist, and anyone that disagrees with me isn't a journalist is a dangerous argument.

[deurbano]

7. As I said on another thread:

Miranda was a courier for a journalist employed by the newspaper that paid the courier's expenses.

I know the whole concept of "journalist" is evolving (and some people are slow to catch up), but Greenwald's situation is old school (as a journalist working for a long established, widely read newspaper), so I can't understand how his status is even in question.

[ljm2002]

9. Thank goodness...

...I was starting to wonder if any mainstream journalists were going to call that out.

Big K&R

[Luminous Animal]

13. If simply possessing classified information were a crime, I’d be speaking to you from a room full of

criminals.


The best line of a very good article.

[Recursion]

14. Drugs are strict liability. Classified material isn't

That said, police are going to do whatever they can to recover that material.

[HumansAndResources]

16. Yes, but Look Deeper Please

The "Drug War" scam says you can't control your own body - "To Keep You Safe"

The "Intelligence / NSA" scam says the govt needs to access your private communications - "To Keep You Safe"

The Wars and foreign interventions that Create The Terrorists in the first place are another scam - "To Keep You Safe"

Is a common thread becoming clear yet? Our "enemies" are ALL fabrications built on top of one another. All are also highly-profitable to very unsavory folks.

The reporter de-legitimizes the handling of Miranda, by providing legitimacy to the drug-war / prison-industrial-complex.
(prisons are not 'for profit' in England per-se - taking profit for every inmate - but those who build and maintain them do make money).

[deurbano]

17. That's an interesting point.