UK Court: David Miranda Detention Legal Under Terrorism Law
Source: The Intercept
UK Court: David Miranda Detention Legal Under Terrorism Law
By Ryan Devereaux
19 Feb 2014, 5:23 AM EST
A British lower court has ruled that London police acted lawfully in employing an anti-terror statute to detain and interrogate David Miranda for nearly nine hours at Heathrow Airport last summer, even while recognizing that the detention was “an indirect interference with press freedom.”
In a decision released Wednesday morning Lord Justice John Laws, Mr Justice Duncan Ouseley and Mr Justice Peter Openshaw said that while Miranda’s detention was “an indirect interference with press freedom” it was justified and legitimate due to “very pressing” issues of national security.
- snip -
After the police’s justification was made public in November, leading UK human rights groups and a member of the British parliament expressed outrage, saying it appeared baseless and threatened to have damaging consequences for investigative journalism, the Guardian reported .
Greenwald told The Intercept the UK has the unique distinction of being the only foreign government that has equated the NSA coverage he and Poitras are responsible for to terrorism.
- snip -
“We made clear long ago that we would not ever be deterred in any way in reporting aggressively on these documents by this kind of thuggish behavior from the British government, and we have been and will continue to be very true to our word,” Greenwald added. “It is ironic that as the world rightfully condemns the Egyptian military regime for imprisoning Al Jazeera journalists on the ground that their journalism is a form of ‘terrorism’, the UK Government yet again shows the repressive company it keeps by doing the same.”
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf
Read more: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/19/uk-court-david-miranda-detention-legal-terrorism-law
Greenwald's Response:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/19/uks-equating-journalism-terrorism-designed-conceal-gchq
- snip -
Equating journalism with terrorism has a long and storied tradition. Indeed, as Jonathan Schwarz has documented, the U.S. Government has frequently denounced nations for doing exactly this. Just last April, Under Secretary of State Tara Sonenshine dramatically informed the public that many repressive, terrible nations actually “misuse terrorism laws to prosecute and imprison journalists.” When visiting Ethiopia in 2012, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns publicly disclosed that in meetings with that nation’s officials, the United States “express[ed] our concern that the application of anti-terrorism laws can sometimes undermine freedom of expression and independent media.” The same year, the State Department reported that Burundi was prosecuting a journalist under terrorism laws.
It should surprise nobody that the U.K. is not merely included in, but is one of the leaders of, this group of nations which regularly wages war on basic press freedoms. In the 1970s, British journalist Duncan Campbell was criminally prosecuted for the crime of reporting on the mere existence of the GCHQ, while fellow journalist Mark Hosenball, now of Reuters, was forced to leave the country. The monarchy has no constitutional guarantee of a free press. The UK government routinely threatens newspapers with all sorts of sanctions for national security reporting it dislikes. Its Official State Secrets Act makes it incredibly easy to prosecute journalists and others for disclosing anything which political officials want to keep secret. For that reason, it was able to force the Guardian to destroy its own computers containing Snowden material precisely: because the paper’s editors knew that British courts would slavishly defer to any requests made by the GCHQ to shut down the paper’s reporting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, then, that's nothing new for most governments. What's new is that more and more people are noticing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)aa to what the judges thought of his legal arguments and integrity.
I mean you don't call somebody "didactic" in a decision because you believe the line they're trying to sell you.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)smackdown of GG....I cannot wait to post excerpts...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)over journalism? You hate journalists that much (or love the security services that much) that you're excited by this?
I'd be ashamed to admit that on a Democratic site.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)viewpoints on constitutional standing and duties have been roundly smacked.
Tell.me...from the actual decision, mind you....what point of law did you disagree with.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)I think that the security services had to send in three requests to stop and search Miranda before one was accepted shows that they didn't really regard this as connected to 'terrorism' - they wouldn't have marked that section as 'not applicable' if they had. They had to stretch to find a reason that satisfied the police officer.
This may well fit the letter of the English law. But that shows the English law was written to allow the state ridiculously large powers to harass individuals when it decides 'national security' can be used as an excuse. I don't think the judgement addressed the proportionality of the detention properly.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to stop Miranda, thus DS Goode consented:
Detective Superintendent Caroline Goode of the Metropolitan Police, attached to SO15, has also described the concerns arising from the theft of the 58,000 documents. At paragraph 15 of her statement of 27 August 2013 she says:
“The material needs to be examined as a matter of urgency to identify the nature of the material stolen in order to enable the MPS to mitigate the risks posed by the theft, the unlawful possession and disclosure of this material. For example, should the identity of individuals working for HMG be revealed their lives and the lives of their families could be directly at risk. Similarly should details of ongoing/historic operations and/or methodology be revealed the operation itself could be rendered ineffective. This will consequently put the lives of the general public at risk as we would be less able to counter the threat from terrorism. If the MPS was able to identify what identities and information are contained within the material we would be able to mitigate the risk posed to those individuals, those operations and the general public at large by putting appropriate measures in place.”
Mr. Greenwald failed to address this. So he lost.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)It's stupid to say it's "libertarianism" you're attacking. This isn't about economics. This is about the rights of citizens to be informed about the illegal actions of their governments. I agree with the opinion of one of the most liberal UK MPs:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/david-miranda-detention-lawful-court-glenn-greenwald
You are cheerleading for an authoritarian state.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Germany....but understand what happened here.
Instead of publishing from Germany, or transmitting electronically to the Guardian from Germany, Glenn arranged to have the material taken to his home in Rio. Remember...Britain was merely a stop over.
The Guardian wasn't supposed to get those documents. Sure, the Guardian paid for the trip, but you notice that Glenn didn't turn anything over to the Guardian...it was all going to Rio. Those documents were to be the treasure trove that Glenn is basing his upcoming book on....
Which is why, you will note, ---the Guardian is not an Intervener. They dropped this 'case' like a muthafuckin' hot potato.*** And Glenn isn't working for the Guardian anymore...this case is all about economic interest....Glenn's.
***Seriously...haven't you wondered why the Guardian has been relatively quiet, and didn't file? After all, if Miranda was working for them, wouldn't they be outraged? Or is that the reason Greenwald isn't working for the Guardian is because they figured out that the Rio treasure trove was going to be Glenn's personal stash????
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)That is the 'liberty interest'. They are of interest to the citizens of several countries (Brazil, Germany, the USA, Indonesia, Australia, the UK ...), and, after the seizure of Miranda's property, Greenwald has continued to publish exposes of wrong-doing, in conjunction with newspapers in several countries (including the Guardian). By claiming this was 'about his book', when you know very well he has published a lot more journalism (including, for instance, the website linked to in the OP), you are making yourself look dishonest.
The Guardian has not 'dropped this'; it continues to support Miranda and Greenwald, publishing this, for instance:
When the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald was detained at Heathrow airport last August under the Terrorism Act, MI5 were pulling the strings and knew full well that he wasn't a terrorist
Luke Harding
The Guardian, Sunday 2 February 2014 19.01 GMT
...
The use of schedule 7 against someone who was known not to be a terrorist was a blatant abuse – and an alarming precedent in which a government matched journalism with terrorism.
This was the first time the much-criticised section of the act had been used against a journalist carrying source material. Coming on top of the forced destruction of the Guardian's computers on 20 July, it looked like a chilling attack on press freedom.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/david-miranda-detention-chilling-attack-journalism
Or this, after the verdict today:
The interference of Britains' security services is shocking, but it's also vital that we shed light on the murky reality of schedule 7
...
It is also important to recognise that our judiciary is currently on the back foot. It is not only the European court of human rights that is being attacked by the tabloids and tea party tendency; many of our own judges have been at the receiving end of vitriol for being too committed to human rights. We are now seeing our judiciary in defensive mode. This judgment is another setback but it will form part of a continuing conversation between our courts and the European court of human rights on this issue and many others. As this goes on, let's keep the core message clear: schedule 7 may be lawful but it is really rotten law.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/david-miranda-press-freedom-race-justice
We’re disappointed by today’s judgment, which means that an Act designed to defeat terrorism can now be used to catch those who are working on fundamentally important issues.
The judgment takes a narrow view of what ‘journalism’ is in the 21st century and a very wide view of the definition of ‘terrorism’. We find that disturbing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/high-court-ruling-on-david-miranda-heathrow-detention-live-coverage#block-5304978de4b0911693db6cb8
Just take a look at the people you are lining up with - the Conservative Home Secretary, a Conservative MP, the Metropolitan Police, and the British security services. Against you, there's Liberty, Article 19, English PEN, Media Legal Defence Initiative , Privacy International, a Liberal Democrat MP with an excellent record, a Conservative MP with a good record on civil liberties, the National Union of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and Index on Censorship. You couldn't make it clearer: you stand with state oppression. You should hang your head in shame.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luke is a great writer, and his opinion in the Guardian doesn't explain why his newspaper chose to not Intervene, and why Mr. Greenwald is no longer working at the Guardian.
You are trying to have it both ways--you are claiming, without a shred of evidence that this stolen property was "evidence of wrongdoing." But Glenn told the court he couldn't open the files.
So which is it???? You cannot claim that there is "evidence of wrongdoing" and that the files cannot be opened.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)You do, however, need to be an authoritarian to cheer it. I don't know why you are obsessed about whether The Guardian was in the list of Interveners. Since they were paying for Miranda's flight, and Greenwald was working for them at the time, they were an 'interested party', and could not be listed as an 'Intervener'.
No, Miranda told the court that he (ie Miranda) was unable to open the files. No-one has suggested that Greenwald wouldn't be able to open them. That would be idiotic.
The 'evidence of wrongdoing' has been published, in many newspapers around the world.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)definition why you would be an Intervener.
Yes--precisely--if Miranda could not open the files, and Greenwald never got them, then how could anyone know that there was "evidence of wrongdoing?" (FYI, I am sorry I confused you--when I wrote 'Glenn' I did mean to write 'Miranda.')
Again--which is it, because you cannot claim that you have evidence of wrongdoing on files you haven't seen/cannot open.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)appellant or respondent, prosecutor or accused, a party has a direct stake in the
outcome of the case, whereas a third party intervener does not. Equally, a third party
intervener should not be confused with:
(i) an interested party: an interested party is someone who is identified by either
the claimant or the defendant as being directly affected by the case.8 An
interested party may also added to the case by the court itself, where it
appears to the court that it is desirable to do so in order to resolve a dispute
or issue.9
http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/32/To-Assist-the-Court-26-October-2009.pdf
English PEN etc. are interveners - they wished to make a submission because of the principles* involved. The Guardian was an interested party - Greenwald was working for them.
Miranda could not open the files. He did not have the encryption key. Greenwald did. How can you not understand this? The contents of the files were not lost forever when the British seized them. Poitras still had a copy. She will have sent them by some other method. Greenwald has continued to publish articles describing the surveillance of innocent people by the British and US governments that you love so much. That's the fucking evidence.
*A 'principle' is where you have an idea about right and wrong, and stick to it. You may be unfamiliar with the term, since you permanently side with the NSA.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)claimed to be an Intervener. They didn't even try.
But your claim is strange....are you saying they were an interested party? Then why not a Claimant?
Why did the Guardian do nothing? Is it because they realized they weren't getting the materials? I'm betting that's it...and now, Greenwald and Poitras are working for some billionaire.
And actually...you have a big hole in your second to last paragraph....can you cite any of your claim? That Poitras was able to get those files out of Germany and that Greenwald is leaking files from that same source? Because you see, then that really makes Glenn's whining moot.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)with charges,and had his personal possessions and data confiscated? You need that explained to you? OK, apart from the intimidation of a private individual by an oppressive state, which would worry any progressive or liberal, but which you actively cheer on, Miranda had his phones and computer taken away. Would you be happy if a police officer marched into your house and took away the computer you're working on? And detained you for 9 hours?
No, the Guardian could not 'clearly' have been an intervener. That paragraph 11 is about occasional exceptions - "In most cases nowadays, someone whose private interests are directly affected by a case could reasonably expect to be either named as an interested party by the claimant or defendant, joined as a party by the court, or even apply to join the case as a party themselves. In certain cases, however, interveners in the private interest may still be found."
The Guardian continued to publish material from Greenwald after the incident. That is stated in the court papers. You've lost your bet already.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)point out to you that the Guardian made no attempt to be heard...I find that speaks volumes. Greenwald and Poitras are now employed by a billionaire, and Glenn now speaks in a disparaging manner of the Guardian, who of course continued to publish him....clicks are money.
Would I be upset if a police officer marched into my house.....surely, that is not what happened here. Of course...you are moving the goalposts because you simply do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to international borders. Unless you are trying to make a 4th amendment argument for Heathrow??
No...what happened here was a ham-handed attempt by Greenwald to courier stolen materials through his spouse. It failed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)Greenwald does not criticise the Guardian for its behaviour in this case. It's not disparaging. He thinks Harding cannot write a good book on Snowden, since he's never met him, but that is a separate matter.
This isn't about opinions on 'how the law would apply'. It's about your authoritarian desire for the surveillance state to win, and citizens to lose.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Greenwald’s more abrasive side surfaces when the subject turns to a Guardian book, The Snowden Files, by Luke Harding, published in early February. “It is a bullshit book,” he says. “They are purporting to tell the inside story of Edward Snowden but it is written by someone who has never met or even spoken to Edward Snowden.
SNIP
At the time of our meeting, though, he was clearly angry about it. “One of the things about the Guardian that I really disliked is that they used Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and got a lot of benefit from publishing the material [diplomatic cables leaked by Bradley Manning] and then completely turned into being his leading demoniser.”
I think they finally caught on to what a wanker Assange really is.
And you haven't provided the cite I asked for. Please do.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)You've only asked for it because you don't understand the situation. Greenwald has never complained that the data Miranda had was the only copy, and that it has been lost forever. It's clear Poitras and Greenwald have continued to work together and exchange information. She is not isolated. They don't need to travel through Britain or the US to see each other.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That if we don't support Greenwald, we MUST be anti-liberty. It's a lazy, sophomoric argument that is beneath DU standards of decency. You should be ashamed to use such "police state" tactics (see, two can play at that stupid game).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)a bunch of Libertarians that will screw us all in the end.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And has nothing to do with hooking to anyone's star.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)You can read the reactions of civil liberties groups. msanthrope is aligned with the surveillance state.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I would probably take you up on looking at his/her posts but it's not. I've been called the same fucking thing because I think Greenwald is an asshole who USED Snowden for his own ends and has now abandoned him to his problems. He's doling out the information so it continues to stay in the news rather than just releasing what he pretends are the worst crimes in the history of the world. It's become all about Greenwald and not about Snowden and not about anyone here. He's looking for attention and worship and it seems DU is only too happy to oblige.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)It is the right of citizens not to be spied on by their own or allied governments.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)He has said he is not a Libertarian.
There is no reason to call him a Libertarian.
Which point of law do I disagree with?
How 'bout Guardian editors being forced to destroy their own hard drives in their own office?
Yeah, I know that's not really what you are asking. Except it is.
You really defend this totalitarian shit?
Go ahead. Be my guest.
Defend away.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)1.) It was expected.
2.) Judge Laws ruled in 2004 to allow evidence gained from torture.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/08/Brit_Judges_OK_torture.html
From Lord Justice Laws' judgement: 'I am quite unable to see that any ... principle prohibits the Secretary of State from relying ... on evidence ... which has or may have been obtained by torture by agencies of other states over which he has no powers of direction'
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I can't wait to hear how tickled you are that the UK has chosen the same route as the military coup leaders in Egypt are using against journalists there.
Its always amazing to me when you all expose yourselves.
You still have time to delete your comments... On second thought, probably just as well you leave them up.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Brits got back.
One can hardly complain when what you have helped steal is stolen from you.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Its certain to chill other investigative journalists with confidential sources (not just family members) who will be traveling with source material. Let's see, what other countries have histories of detaining family members of journalists in order to pressure and intimidate them? (that was a rhetorical question as I know you're smart enough to know what authoritarian regimes also use this technique... )
But please. Do carry on trying to justify this. The rest of the world understands that this was a blatant attempt to intimidate Greenwald over his NSA stories. I for one won't stand in the way of your hilarity over this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And so what if he is a family member? Did Greenwald give his spouse stolen material, rather than do it himself? If that's Greenwald's attempt at spycraft, well, he sucks at it.
As I've indicated in a post above, the entire scenario really doesn't make sense until you realize that the material that was taken from Miranda was on its way to Rio....not the Guardian.
I've noted that the Guardian is not an Intervener here, and Greenwald no longer works for them...in fact, has been disparaging of them in recent days.
But look...I think it takes a certain level of arrogance and naiveté to presume that when you steal from governments, they aren't going to use every legal means at their disposal to get their property back.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)above all of this. He's answered your points.
I am however disappointed to find you haven't gotten around to gleefully posting "epic" excerpts that will definitively prove how little you all care about the issues and how desperately you all want to make this about the personalities. Please do go on and on and on with multiple posts. A good show so no one is left in any doubt whatsoever.
Please proceed Governor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)but I think paragraphs 55 through 59 are pretty damning. I appreciate the dry wit of a British soul.
Why don't you post that for me, and see if you disagree?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Besides, I'm enjoying the spectacle.
Please proceed...
...governor.
(you can copy and paste from a smart phone. I do most of my posting while I work from a smart phone, like right now).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)To the jury--no copyright issue, as this is a public document.
55. Mr Greenwald’s witness statement of 23 October 2013 contains a similar theme at paragraph 9:
“I believe the evidence will show that the defendants were well aware that the claimant’s possession [sc. of the material seized] was in connection with journalism, not terrorism.”
Mr Greenwald’s account of the practice of “responsible journalism” has a didactic quality:
“31. It is my view that there will be times when the publication of sensitive material, even national security material, is appropriate, provided the journalist and those working with him or her take great care and act responsibly.
32. But not to publish material simply because a government official has said such publication may be damaging to national security is antithetical to the most important traditions of responsible journalism. That approach is also deeply unhealthy for any democracy. It would have prevented some of the most important information in world current affairs ever coming to light. Publication of information contrary to the wishes of a government is, at times, both the role and the duty of the ‘Fourth Estate’. The key is not for journalists to simply defer to the government view, but to act as responsibly and carefully as they can to determine if and when it is in the public interest to publish sensitive material. That is what we have done.
33. From my experience I can indicate that there are many ingredients to the sensible reporting of very sensitive information. They include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)
If possible, one should seek to use the skills and judgment of highly experienced journalists and legal experts. This is the most appropriate and safest way to decide whether to publish information and how much of it to disclose. That collective experience enables a careful judgment of both the public interest and any risks or dangers that may arise on publication.
(2)
Experienced editors and reporters are able to consider what, if anything, may be published without endangering innocent life. They cannot always, of course, do so with complete perfection. But the history of investigative journalism leaves no doubt that such judgments can be, and almost always are, made with great responsibility.
(3)
Editors and other journalists not only have experience, but they also have established methods through which to communicate with government officials in relation to publication. These can be both formal and informal. These procedures enable journalists to determine which stories may be sensitive because they pose a real danger to persons if there is publication; and which stories are sensitive, awkward, embarrassing for the government, or which the government feels may be undesirable to be made public.”
The nearest Mr Greenwald gets to an engagement with the defendants’ evidence as to the actual or potential damaging effects of the dissemination of material seized from the claimant is at paragraphs 51 – 52:
“51. It is absurd to suggest that because the material, if it ever fell into the hands of terrorists could in theory be used for terrorist purposes, then there is a justification for using counterterrorist measures to take that material from responsible journalists publishing material through respected international media organisations. (original emphasis)
52. Nowhere in their evidence do the defendants’ witnesses positively indicate that any disclosure has actually threatened or endangered life or any specific operation. In my view, this is not surprising, given the care we took not to create such a risk.”
56. I am afraid I have found much of this evidence unhelpful. First, the claimant and Mr Greenwald both appear prepared to accuse the defendants of bad faith. The claimant at paragraphs 61(2) and 62, and Mr Greenwald at paragraph 9, suggest that the defendants deployed the Schedule 7 powers for what they – the defendants – believed was an improper purpose. It is true that the premise of these observations in their evidence is that the identification and neutralisation of the material which the claimant was carrying was not a permitted purpose; and I have held the contrary. But the sting (especially that of paragraph 61(2) of the claimant’s statement) is that the defendants did not believe that the claimant’s possession of the material presented any real danger to national security or risk of loss of life. I bear in mind the limits of evidence not cross-examined; but there is no perceptible foundation for such a suggestion.
57. Secondly, the evidence for the claimant simply does not engage with the defendants’ testimony as to the substance of the threat posed by the theft of the security material and its possession by the claimant. Mr Greenwald’s statement at paragraph 32 that “not to publish material simply because a government official has said such publication may be damaging to national security is antithetical to the most important traditions of responsible journalism” is true but trivial. Of course a bare, wholly unqualified assertion by government will not be enough. But that is not this case; the defendants’ evidence plainly goes much further.
58. Thirdly, Mr Greenwald’s account (paragraph 33) of the “many ingredients to the sensible reporting of very sensitive information” is insubstantial; or rather, mysterious
– the reader is left in the dark as to how it is that “highly experienced journalists and legal experts” (paragraph 33(1)) or “[e]xperienced editors and reporters” (33(2)) are able to know what may and what may not be published without endangering life or security. There may no doubt be obvious cases, where the information on its face is a gift to the terrorist. But in other instances the journalist may not understand the intrinsic significance of material in his hands; more particularly, the consequences of revealing this or that fact will depend upon knowledge of the whole “jigsaw” (a term used in the course of argument) of disparate pieces of intelligence, to which the classes of persons referred to by Mr Greenwald will not have access. At paragraph 26 of his first statement Mr Robbins says this:
“Indeed it is impossible for a journalist alone to form a proper judgment about what disclosure of protectively marked intelligence does or does not damage national security... The fragmentary nature of intelligence means that even a seemingly innocuous piece of information can provide important clues to individuals involved in extremism or terrorism.”
59. In the result, I conclude that nothing said for the claimant qualifies or puts in doubt the evidence of Mr Robbins and DS Goode as to the dangers inherent in the release (or further release) or dissemination of the material in the claimant’s possession. Neither the claimant nor Mr Greenwald is in a position to form an accurate judgment on the matter.
In other words, Glenn's didactic testimony sunk him..
Whisp
(24,096 posts)the GG type of lowlife.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You too, please proceed....
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Lower than gnat shit.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)besides the point.
Both of your posts have been about character assassination and not the issues.
David Miranda:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024041558
"I have been involved in every aspect of Glenn's life, why wouldn't I be a part of this?" Miranda asserts over lunch at a fashion mall in Rio's São Conrado neighborhood the next afternoon. "I think what Snowden did was heroic. Glenn and Laura's reporting is so important. It caused a serious debate about privacy and internet freedom in my country and around the world. I'm so proud to be able to play any role at all in that. I'd go to jail for that."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)He knew exactly what he was doing, wanted to do it, and has said as much.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024041558
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)In each case, these people discovered government wrongdoing hidden behind a shield of secrecy and took action to inform the people of what was being done in their name. Governments responded by harassing and imprisoning these individuals.
This issue has uncovered a fundamental conflict between two groups of people.
One group believes that government secrecy is antithetical to democracy. Not operational secrecy, such as tactical plans or identities of agents, but "policy secrecy": secret laws enforced by secret agencies interpreted by secret courts. This group believes that it is more important to protect the civil and privacy rights of citizens that to protect the ability of governments to act in secret without accountability to the people. This group comprises small-d democrats, i.e. persons dedicated to government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Another group believes that government secrecy is necessary to keep us safe, because the government knows best. When confronted with the fundamental conflict of government secrecy vs. individual liberty, this group chooses the former. When presented with evidence that the government is acting to enhance its own power at the expense of personal freedom, they choose to attack the source of the evidence rather than the source of the problem. This group comprises persons who believe that an individual (such as Snowden, Manning or Assange) breaking the law is more reprehensible than a government doing so. This belief is consistent with an authoritarian mindset.
It's nearly impossible to reason with an individual with an authoritarian mindset, because that individual's sense of well-being is innately dependent on the perceived well-being of the authority figure - be that a charismatic leader, a national identity or a political party or movement. If something is perceived to threaten or attack the authority, it is perceived to threaten or attack the well-being of the authoritarian individual.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)cannot be regarded as action to inform people of government wrongdoing done in their name, for the simple reason that the number of files is far too large in either case for either to have actually formed any definite impression of the content
Snowden stole his documents in less than 100 days, which implies an average download rate of about 17K per day or 700 per hour or 12 a minute. That is, if during his BAH stint, Snowden had spent every minute of every day 24/7 for three months reviewing and downloading files, he would have spent 5 seconds per file to download the file, read the file, and determine if the file contained evidence of "government wrongdoing." That necessarily assumes Snowden has superpowers, since it leaves him no time to sleep or eat &c
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)
you appear to be in the group that finds Manning and Snowden's downloads of 750K and 1.7 million files, respectively, to be a reprehensible crime, and you expend a great deal of effort to point this out repeatedly.
Yet you show little or no concern about the billions of files compiled by the NSA of Americans' internet and phone transmissions. Indeed, when discussions of NSA wrongdoing occur you post only criticisms of Snowden and never of the NSA.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It's just a nonsensical point.
"for the simple reason that the number of files is far too large in either case for either to have actually formed any definite impression of the content"
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)Even without BS, it's hard enough to wage a long hard political fight against a large well-funded opponent, but BS is fatal to the effort
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2014, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)
FLASHING RED LIGHT! FLASHING RED LIGHT! If you fly through the UK with tens of thousands of stolen classified UK documents, they can stop you and ask you some questions and confiscate the documents! Even if you're just innocently carting them back home to your husband!
This is so completely unexpected!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)But you are welcome to ignore all the other important issues all you want.
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I'm thinking Greenwald wanted to send a message about laughably broad anti-terror laws and set this stunt up by routing his partner unnecessarily through Heathrow, hoping the UK authorities would swallow the bait and overreact (and they didn't disappoint)...