We’re All Terrorists Now

This is how absurd things have become both here and over the pond:

British authorities claimed the domestic partner of reporter Glenn Greenwald was involved in “terrorism” when he tried to carry documents from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden through a London airport in August, according to police and intelligence documents.

Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was detained and questioned for nine hours by British authorities at Heathrow on August 18, when he landed there from Berlin to change planes for a flight to Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.

After his release and return to Rio, Miranda filed a legal action against the British government, seeking the return of materials seized from him by British authorities and a judicial review of the legality of his detention.

At a London court hearing this week for Miranda’s lawsuit, a document called a “Ports Circulation Sheet” was read into the record. It was prepared by Scotland Yard – in consultation with the MI5 counterintelligence agency – and circulated to British border posts before Miranda’s arrival. The precise date of the document is unclear.

“Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security,” according to the document.

“We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people’s lives,” the document continued. “Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism…”

Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?






339 replies
  1. 1
    hildebrand says:

    Yep.

  2. 2
    srv says:

    Forget it John, this blog is Darrelltown now.

  3. 3
    JPL says:

    Is this the college football thread? Who will win bragging rights, Betty or Raven?

  4. 4

    Yes, I am outraged that Great Britain did not extend the protections of the US Constitution to a citizen of Brazil!

  5. 5
    Scott S. says:

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    Oh, yeah, Russia is paradise. /rolleyes

  6. 6
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Pretty crazy.

    This is how absurd things have become both here and over the pond:

    Is the assumption that the British gov’t is taking orders from Obama?

  7. 7
    hildebrand says:

    @srv: Good god, man, you are a fool. You are precisely the type who doesn’t realize that a slippery slope is a fallacy.

  8. 8
    Dolly Llama says:

    College football open thread? Bigfoot yourself for a change. Some here will thank you.

    I hope the NSA is closely monitoring the Georgia-Florida game.

  9. 9
    mk3872 says:

    “Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?”

    I don’t think he’s foolish for getting the hell out of there after stealing thousands of highly sensitive, classified documents.

    But I do question his common sense for stealing thousands of highly sensitive, classified documents and the handing them over to Glenn Greenwald.

  10. 10

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Is the assumption that the British gov’t is taking orders from Obama?

    Yep. Because there’s no way that the British authorities would be outraged on their own by Snowden revealing details of Britain’s spying on other European countries. The US had to direct them to be upset by it, because the US controls the internal affairs of Great Britain.

  11. 11
    PsiFighter37 says:

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    Yes, and I will keep on doing so whenever reminded about it. Clown had no issue with this stuff 4 years ago, and now he does…so he gives up a good-paying job in the U.S. to become tech support in Mother Russia.

    Hard to call that a good trade (I don’t think Snowden has any ‘principles’ at all and is just an attention whore like Greenwald, Assange, etc.).

  12. 12
    JPL says:

    John, This proposal for legal aid payment and bonuses is frightening. link Why pretend to have representation at all.

  13. 13
    KG says:

    That last bolded quote is fairly spot on. One man’s freedom fighter (or whistle blower) is another man’s terrorist. The problem, of course, is that there’s no real way to dismantle the National Security Industrial Complex. If nothing happens, it’s a sign of its success. And any failure is proof that more must be done. And to suggest that we might need to reign it in a bit is to spit in the eye of the 9/11 widows and orphans…

  14. 14

    Though, really, it becomes more and more clear that Snowden’s main purpose was to disrupt intelligence operations by NATO members.  No wonder he fled to China and Russia rather than, say, Sweden.

  15. 15
    Hal says:

    Snowden is male, straight and white. As long as he doesn’t criticize Putin Russia is a paradise for him.

  16. 16
    Heliopause says:

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    The people you are addressing with this question are the same people who accuse you of “trolling” your own blog. Coherence isn’t exactly their strong point.

  17. 17
    askew says:

    I am baffled by the idea that Greenwald, Miranda or Snowden should be above the law. Miranda was carrying top secret documents he had no authority to carry. Why should he be given a free pass on this?

  18. 18
    batgirl says:

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    Yep, let me know when the U.S. jails a rock band for publicly criticizing the government. If this were Russia and Obama was Putin, Ted Nugent would be rotting away in prison. Hmmmm. Just kidding

  19. 19
    Corner Stone says:

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    Oh, Cole. Between the commenters who want Snowden and/or Greenwald to die horrific deaths, the ones who accuse the Guardian of being in league with China/Russia, and the ones who keep claiming Snowden is a massive psyops program against the West…it’s obvious that you do not, in fact, ever actually read your own blog.

  20. 20
    Yatsuno says:

    @batgirl:

    If this were Russia and Obama was Putin, Ted Nugent would be rotting away in prison

    TEASE!!!

    Though he did promise he’d be dead or in jail now. Y U NO DED TED?

  21. 21
    Botsplainer says:

    I’m still sad that Miranda wasn’t sent to GITMO in order to get Griftwald to come home to answer for his crimes.

  22. 22
    rda909 says:

    “Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?”

    No mocking needed. Capturing him and prosecuting him as the traitor to the U.S. Constitution that he is…now that’s what should be happening. People who are still fooled by the giant grift of the Snowdenwald and defend their traitorous acts, now those dipshits need to be mocked…mercilessly.

  23. 23
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    This is how absurd things have become both here and over the pond:

    Make the connection. No one has charged Scahill or Miranda or Greenwald with anything in the US. Is the British document a severe overreach? Looks like it to me. Of course, their laws are different what with being a different country and all that.

  24. 24
    different-church-lady says:

    Where the hell was his “good common sense” when he deliberately perused a job with a security agency with the intent to steal classified information?

    Quit treating him like he’s an innocent victim. He knew what he was doing. He simply didn’t think it all the way through.

  25. 25
    KG says:

    @different-church-lady: nah, he thought it all the way though, he just thought it through once, best case scenario… You know, like how we will be greeted as liberators?

  26. 26
    different-church-lady says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): “They all do it” may not be a good excuse, but it sure as hell is a reality.

    Of course, this is a political blog, so I no longer expect reality to enter into the discussion.

  27. 27
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Corner Stone:

    No kidding.

    So from the series of straw man arguments comprising almost all of the first responses in this thread, I see the following being asserted:

    Cole, by pointing out the insanity of the Tory version of the “war on terror” is claiming that Obama had the Brazilian arrested as a terrorist.

    By pointing out that Snowden’s fear of prosecutorial overreach has now been justified and then some by the insanity of the Tory government actions, Cole was saying that Russia by contrast is “a paradise”, rather than a place where the US or UK wouldn’t arrest him.

    And possibly the most astonishing: The only reason to be appalled at the UK government arresting the partner of a journalist as a “terrorist” is because you think they should be following the US constitution.

    That last one really is so insipid as to be beyond belief.

    I don’t think this is a liberal blog. This is a blog hosted by liberals, but frequented mostly by right-wing authoritarians. It’s a very weird combination.

  28. 28
    Keith G says:

    @PsiFighter37:

    Clown had no issue with this stuff 4 years ago, and now he does…so he gives up a good-paying job in the U.S. to become tech support in Mother Russia.

    Keep up with your Barton Gellman reading and you will see that this silly assertion, like so many others is utterly false. Snowdon has been concerned about NSA overreach for quite some time. I know some here like to imagine that this is part of some anti Obama crusade, but just is not the case.

  29. 29

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    You probably should at a minimum read the part of the story Cole excerpted here — this is the British government’s response to Miranda’s lawsuit against them for arresting him. They are not taking action against Miranda — he is suing them.

  30. 30
    FlipYrWhig says:

    British authorities claimed the domestic partner of reporter Glenn Greenwald was involved in “terrorism” when he tried to carry documents from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden through a London airport in August, according to police and intelligence documents.

    I think this is a misreading by Reuters. The UK detained him under the authority of an anti-terrorism statute. It sounds to me like the official language is justifying _suspicion_–“he was doing the kind of thing that could be associated with terrorism, which is why it was a Good Stop”–without going quite so far as to claim _involvement_–“he was committing terrorist acts, so we stopped him.” It’s the difference between justifying stopping someone for stumbling around in a parking lot under the authority of a DWI statute and claiming that all stumbling around is identical to intoxication.

    Remember that the relevant UK law–Terrorism Act 2000–authorizes security staff at ports and airports to detain people at whim, without the need to show cause. Stop and search powers appear to be very broad under UK law. Maybe the UK should work on that.

  31. 31
    Tripod says:

    @KG:

    It’s all just a big misunderstanding, and he’d be happy to explain it to the congressional tea party caucus.

  32. 32
    different-church-lady says:

    BTW, maybe we’ll “all be terrorists” the day we all walk through foreign airports carrying electronic briefcases full
    of that country’s security secrets.

    Until then “we” don’t have jack shit in common with with Miranda.

  33. 33
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Not all liberals are civil libertarians. Promoting civil liberties issues to the pinnacle of liberal ideology strikes me as a gambit of rather recent vintage.

  34. 34
    KG says:

    @Tripod: but only so long as there is a Democrat in the White House… once there is a Republican in the White House, the tea party caucus will be boiling oil and collecting feathers for his testimony

  35. 35
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @FlipYrWhig: From what I have read on the Terrorist Act of 2000, it is a really crappy law that gives the Brit authorities really broad powers. And they had pretty broad powers before. Hell, it sounds like they now have the kind of powers to stop, search, and hold people that the French and German authorities have.

  36. 36
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @different-church-lady: He was stopped for no reason, which was totally unfair! OK, after they stopped him they found a legitimate reason but, still!

  37. 37

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Yep. It’s a defense against Miranda’s lawsuit, so it’s arguing that they had an actual reason to stop him since the lawsuit seems to be claiming that Miranda was only stopped for harassment purposes because he’s Greenwald’s boyfriend and not because he was carrying classified documents.

  38. 38
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: So from the series of straw man arguments comprising almost all of the first responses in this thread, I see the following being asserted:
    Cole, by pointing out the insanity of the Tory version of the “war on terror” is claiming that Obama had the Brazilian arrested as a terrorist.

    I asked a question, Your Holiness*. Cole says this British case demonstrates how crazy things have gotten “here”. That looks like the first straw man, the product of the kind sloppy emotionalism this case seems to provoke. I personally think Snowden is four kinds of a dingbat, but that doesn’t excuse what the NSA is doing domestically. I also don’t think that the NSA spying on Angela Merkel is a crime, though it may well be a mistake. And I don’t see how the cause of international freedom is advanced now that we know about it. And calling “the Brazillian” (kind of odd, his name is right there, several times, in the original post. Not that hard to spell or remember.) a terrorist is pretty stupid, but unless I missed a big story, he wasn’t and hasn’t been arrested (another straw man). This is about his lawsuit seeking to have illegally attained documents returned to him.

    * is your nym meant to indicate that you see yourself as a Puritan? Self-righteous, humorless and convinced that you know the great and holy Truth?

  39. 39
    JPL says:

    GA 23 — FL 3

  40. 40
    different-church-lady says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Probably a play on the protagonist of Slaughterhouse-Five

  41. 41
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I personally think Snowden is four kinds of a dingbat, but that doesn’t excuse what the NSA is doing domestically. I also don’t think that the NSA spying on Angela Merkel is a crime, though it may well be a mistake. And I don’t see how the cause of international freedom is advanced now that we know about it.

    I agree with all of this. OTOH, I would suggest that you reread Slaughterhouse Five.

  42. 42
    Jose Arcadio Buendia says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): don’t let facts get in the way of glibertarian righteous indignation.

  43. 43
    rikyrah says:

    Snowden is a traitor.

    Keep on this Greenwald train if you wish….

    but, he’s a deranged libertarian who wants his pony and unicorns

  44. 44
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Agreed. Still, it kinda seems like a passionate repudiation of the UK’s broad anti-terror statutes would be better transacted across a case of someone who was jacked up for no cause, rather than someone who was jacked up _and found to be carrying sensitive information_. I mean, stop-and-frisk sucks and is used for groundless harassment all the damn time, but if stop-and-frisk catches a guy who’s holding, that’s instantly a much less sympathetic story.

  45. 45
    l says:

    @PsiFighter37: Yes it is very important to concentrate on the personalities of the people, and ignore the issues that were raised.

    Now go watch the football and have a nice drinky like a good boy.

  46. 46
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Though, really, it becomes more and more clear that Snowden’s main purpose was to disrupt intelligence operations by NATO members. No wonder he fled to China and Russia rather than, say, Sweden.

    No it doesn’t.

    Again, read Gellman’s reporting and you will see that the above assertion has the same relationship to reality as does a Louie Gohmert rant about anthropogenic climate change.

    What Snowden apparently would like is an informed public to be able to make decisions about the general nature of the intelligence work that their tax dollars pay for.

  47. 47
    Howard Beale IV says:

    Gen. Alexander should be relived of command for releasing a cyberweapon that had no suitable self-destruct mechanism.

  48. 48
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I mean, stop-and-frisk sucks and is used for groundless harassment all the damn time, but if stop-and-frisk catches a guy who’s holding, that’s instantly a much less sympathetic story.

    Ummm…say what, now?

  49. 49
    Corner Stone says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: This is not a liberal blog.

  50. 50
    Howard Beale IV says:

    @PsiFighter37: Sometimes people develop something called a conscience.

  51. 51
    JPL says:

    What did Brazil say when their citizen was charged with terrorism? I could use the google but since there are a lot of informed folk on this blog, thought I’d ask. ….

  52. 52
    Baud says:

    This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism…”

    The ellipses is interesting. If the phrase that was omitted was “under the Terrorism Act,” or something like that, then it’s possible that British statutes define terrorism to cover non-terrorist activities. Our own Espionage Act, for example, prohibits activities beyond traditional espionage.

    It would be interesting to see the underlying document.

  53. 53
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Agreed on all counts. To me, it’s language that suggests it was a by-the-book stop: here’s what we did, and here’s how it syncs to the law.

    Everyone can decide for themselves whether it’s a case of authorities cooking up a pretext after the fact or an actual reflection of what they thought when stopping him in the first place. But I think the Reuters reporter is overstating what the document says/means.

  54. 54

    @Keith G:

    What Snowden apparently would like is an informed public to be able to make decisions about the general nature of the intelligence work that their tax dollars pay for.

    And when you say “informed public,” you are of course including the citizens of Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, and Sweden, correct? Because at this point, the majority of Snowden’s revelations have had to do with the spying operations of those countries and not US spying on US citizens, which was how the story was originally sold.

  55. 55
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Corner Stone: There is still a constitutional violation, but there are people who would say that it is okay because the guy was guilty. Lots of people have no problem with police brutality because they “know” it will never happen to them because they are innocent. Those people are foolish at best.

  56. 56
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: If you wanted to explain that stop and frisk was harassment, would you use a story about how a stop-and-frisk stop turned up drugs (or weapons, or whatever), or would you use a story about how a stop-and-frisk stop turned up nothing?

    ETA Not in terms of right and wrong, but in terms of how well it would work as a publicity coup.

  57. 57

    @Keith G:

    And you did, of course, read the link I provided to today’s Snowden revelations before you declared it bogus and irrelevant to Snowden’s previous revelations, correct?

  58. 58
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Baud:

    This.

  59. 59
    sm*t cl*de says:

    Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause.

    The clever dicks at MI5 have written a definition of “terrorism” large enough to include themselves. They possess classified information… which they may not be disclosing at the moment “for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause”, but the threat of disclosure is always there.

  60. 60
    aimai says:

    @Scott S.: I tend to agree with this. You can’t argue that Snowden showed “good common sense” in anything he did. Whether you think he acted from noble causes or not he has shown a stunning lack of good sense in the sense of self protection and in the sense of good promotion of his causes.

  61. 61
    different-church-lady says:

    Yes, it’s just like stop and frisk, because everyone deserves the right to travel internationally without any scrutiny at the borders.

  62. 62
    Steve Crickmore says:

    @JPL: Globo news reports “Em Brasília, o Itamaraty informou que acompanha e monitora a situação de David Miranda e que não há acusação formal contra o companheiro de Glenn Greenwald. Em razão disso, o órgão não se posiciona sobre os apontamentos de espionagem e terrorismo feitos pela Scotland Yard.”… ” In Brasilia, the Foreign Ministry said it tracks and monitors the situation of David Miranda, and that there is no formal charge against the friend of Glenn Greenwald. As a result, the agency takes no position on the points of espionage and terrorism made ​​by Scotland Yard”.

  63. 63
    some guy says:

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    it only took 4 comments. impressive.

  64. 64
    PopeRatzo says:

    @rda909:

    People who are still fooled by the giant grift of the Snowdenwald

    That’s right. The people telling us what our governments are doing are the grifters, but the $200billion/year corporate/intelligence apparatus are just honest working people.

    I’m starting to understand how many of you can convince yourself that a Heritage Foundation idea for “health care reform” is now a great liberal victory. Up is down and war is peace.

    Damn that Snowden for the millions he’s grifted, living it up over in Russia as a help desk worker.

  65. 65
    Yatsuno says:

    @Keith G:

    What Snowden apparently would like is an informed public to be able to make decisions about the general nature of the intelligence work that their tax dollars pay for.

    How noble. Maybe we should throw a ticker-tape parade for him. Oh wait…

  66. 66
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Baud:

    If the phrase that was omitted was “under the Terrorism Act,” or something like that, then it’s possible that British statutes define terrorism to cover non-terrorist activities. Our own Espionage Act, for example, prohibits activities beyond traditional espionage.

    Yes, I think it’s quite similar. (When this was last in the news, the comparison I made was that the Patriot Act limits bank transfers, by the rationale that big bank transfers might be indicative of terrorist financing, so an investigation of an oversized bank transfer would be under the authority of the Patriot Act even if it had nothing to do with terrorism.)

    The big brouhaha in the UK about the Terrorism Act 2000 was that it authorized searches that went beyond suspicion of terrorism. I linked to the Wikipedia article on the law a little while back in this thread.

  67. 67
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    Here is the Guardian’s article on it.

  68. 68
    PopeRatzo says:

    @JPL:

    since there are a lot of informed folk on this blog

    You must be new.

  69. 69
    FlipYrWhig says:

    In case it wasn’t clear before, and in further response to Baud’s question:

    From the OP:

    “We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people’s lives,” the document continued. “Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism…”

    From the Terrorism Act 2000:

    (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-

    (a) the action falls within subsection (2),
    (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
    (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][3] or ideological cause.

    (2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

    (a) involves serious violence against a person,
    (b) involves serious damage to property,
    (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
    (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
    (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    (3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

    (Edited after posting.)

    That does suggest that the UK authorities are saying they were right to suspect Miranda of “terrorism,” because, as sm*t cl*de just pointed out, “terrorism” under the act includes a lot of things that I for one wouldn’t call terrorism.

  70. 70
  71. 71
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): It seems that we have been made aware that an agency of our government has been operating at a level that some might qualify as beyond rational restraint. At the very least they have been doing things that the chief executive has not been aware of and is not comfortable with.

    Whether most of the humans impacted by the revelations (thus far) are more non citizens than citizens is, for some, a distinction without a difference. Unaccountable overreach is seen by many as not a good thing.

  72. 72
    FlipYrWhig says:

    FYI, here’s a story from 2009, courtesy of the Wikipedia entry, about a detention under the Terrorism Act: Police stop church photographer under terrorism powers, The Guardian, 8 Dec. 2009.

  73. 73
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Comparing this with stop-and-frisk is a mistake. Stop-and-frisk involves random stops, based on nothing but the appearance of the subject of the search. In the Miranda case, the authorities in the UK targeted Miranda specifically because they had intelligence that implicated him- the Ports Circulation Sheet was issued before Miranda arrived in the UK.

  74. 74

    @Keith G:

    Whether most of the humans impacted by the revelations (thus far) are more non citizens than citizens is, for some, a distinction without a difference. Unaccountable overreach is seen by many as not a good thing.

    Apparently you continue to have reading comprehension problems — the revelations both in Cole’s claims today and the article I linked to are about the intelligence services in Great Britain, not in the US.

    Unless you’re one of those people who is under the impression that the NSA completely controls Great Britain’s intelligence services and issues orders to them, I’m still not getting why every story about Snowden or Greenwald is turned into The NSA sucks!  Unless, again, you believe the UK has no autonomy and just does whatever the US instructs them to do.

  75. 75
    IM says:

    (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action

    So that is their peg. But I don’t think 2 c) can be interpreted that way. c) has to endanger directly the life of a person like a) or b).

  76. 76
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): I only mentioned S&F because it seems that the UK law being cited authorizes S&F-like activity. Was Miranda randomly stopped, stopped for harassment/intimidation, or stopped for cause? Seems like that’s the heart of the dispute.

  77. 77
    AxelFoley says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Yes, I am outraged that Great Britain did not extend the protections of the US Constitution to a citizen of Brazil!

    /thread

  78. 78
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @IM: That’s probably why they’re also citing 1b and 1c.

  79. 79
    AxelFoley says:

    @askew:

    I am baffled by the idea that Greenwald, Miranda or Snowden should be above the law. Miranda was carrying top secret documents he had no authority to carry. Why should he be given a free pass on this?

    White privilege is a muthafucka.

  80. 80
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Yes I did. Which is why I wondered where you found evidence that “Snowden’s main purpose was to disrupt intelligence operations by NATO members.” Your assertion is not backed up by the plain text at your link . If the end of a long work day has left me more dense than usual, please feel free to show me where I misread.

  81. 81
    IM says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    But 1b or 1c are another condition additional to 1a. And 1a has to something covered under 2.

  82. 82
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I only mentioned S&F because it seems that the UK law being cited authorizes S&F-like activity.

    That may be true in some cases, but in this case it looks as if they had cause. It wasn’t a random stop.

  83. 83
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @IM: IANAB. B = barrister. Maybe they’ll lose! But that’s the source of the language they’re using, a statutory definition of “terrorism” under the Terrorism Act. Again, it seems like some things get called “terrorism” that don’t feel to me like terrorism, but that’s what courts are for.

  84. 84

    @Keith G:

    Well, let’s pull a few relevant quotes from the story that you seem to have missed:

    Spy agencies in Germany, France, Spain and Sweden are carrying out mass surveillance of online and phone traffic in collaboration with Britain, according to documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the Guardian newspaper reported Saturday.

    (snip)

    Saturday’s report said the intelligence services of the European countries, in a “loose but growing” alliance, carried out surveillance through directly tapping fibre-optic cables and through secret relationships with communications companies.

    (snip)

    Sweden won praise from the British for passing a law in 2008 allowing tapping of fibre-optic cables and planned to work closely with them on carrying out the operations, the report said.

    Nope, nothing embarrassing to the five NATO allies named there.  It was all done in the name of Open Government, amirite?  Oh, and Snowden decided to take a shot at ANZUS as well:

    China, Indonesia and Malaysia have demanded explanations this week over reports that data was being collected for the Americans via Australian embassies.

    But this was all done because of Snowden’s outrage over the US spying on US citizens, amirite?

  85. 85
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @IM: Eventually one ends up with two sets of questions: 1. Was the detention justified under current British law? 2. Is current British law on this too broad? Of course, there is a third potential set of questions revolving around whether the detention still would have been justifiable under a narrower law.

  86. 86
    IM says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Well, the way I interpret the language, this isn’t covered by the act.

  87. 87
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Makes sense. In that case it seems like the part that has people upset is that the way the law is written there’s not much distinction between possession of sensitive information and “terrorism,” because the statutory definition of terrorism under the law is broad enough to include that. I still don’t get where the “we” comes from in John’s OP, though. “We” are only “all terrorists now” to the extent that “we” do things in the UK that fall under the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000.

  88. 88
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Jesus Christ but I have still not been able to inure myself to the incredible depths of mendacity you will go to just flat out fucking lie about shit.
    Your brain is absolutely fucking broken lady.

  89. 89

    @Keith G:

    The majority of Snowden’s revelations have been about spying operations by the US, the UK, and our NATO allies. But I guess that’s all just a co-inkydince, a side effect of Snowden’s desire for Open Government.

  90. 90
    John Cole says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That does suggest that the UK authorities are saying they were right to suspect Miranda of “terrorism,” because, as sm*t cl*de just pointed out, “terrorism” under the act includes a lot of things that I for one wouldn’t call terrorism.

    Which is the entire fucking point of this post- to point out how absurd we have gotten in regards to what is and what is not terrorism. It’s the same mission creep we had with the drug war that shredded the 4th and other Amendments.

    The point of this post is not, as many of you fucking idiots seem to think, about Obama running the UK or whether Russia and Hong Kong are paradise or whether I think this is all white privilege (AxelFoley can’t be so fucking stupid to think that Miranda is working under white privilege, considering Miranda isn’t white), and so on.

    The point of this fucking post is that the national security state, both here and abroad, is out of fucking control and that we aren’t too far from jaywalking being considered a terrorist offense, you blockheaded wankers.

  91. 91
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @IM: If you were a British judge in a funny wig, Miranda would be encouraged to hear that.

  92. 92
    Corner Stone says:

    And since our allies in NZ have been mentioned, let’s not forget about the case of Kim Dotcom. Where:
    “In January 2012, the New Zealand Police placed him in custody in response to US charges of criminal copyright infringement in relation to his Megaupload website”

  93. 93
    danielx says:

    “Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism…”

    Yeah, the disclosure of embarrassing information certainly falls under the same heading, i.e. terrorism, as the Omagh bombing, for example. Language is an elastic thing, is it not?

  94. 94
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @John Cole: Maybe you should aim your fire at the British government that passed this law in 2000, asswipe. You care this much about British law? The national security state that distresses you is the UK?

  95. 95
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Dearest One, often in a thread, commenters may decide to not directly engage the topic sentence (if you will) of the original post. It is quite usually the case that as a thread goes on, commenters choose to address assertions made by others after the threat began. This will lead to comments which are related to, but not directly aligned with, the original topic.

    I am very sure you know this as you too have used such behavior. What could possibly be your motivation in calling me out for following your lead?

  96. 96
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    The majority of Snowden’s revelations have been about spying operations by the US, the UK, and our NATO allies. But I guess that’s all just a co-inkydince, a side effect of Snowden’s desire for Open Government.

    I laughed at this comment. I mean, really, out loud, laughed.

  97. 97

    @John Cole:

    The point of this fucking post is that the national security state, both here and abroad, is out of fucking control and that we aren’t too far from jaywalking while carrying stolen classified documents being considered a terrorist offense, you blockheaded wankers.

    Fix’d.  Amazing how people outraged over Miranda’s being temporarily detained and then released just happen to gloss over the whole part where he had stolen classified documents on his person and that the UK was on the lookout for him because they suspected that he had them.

    Other than that, it was just like jaywalking!

  98. 98
    handsmile says:

    Coming in a bit late to this temperate discussion, but it should be emphasized that this claim of “terrorism” committed by David Miranda is part of a “Post Circular Notice” prepared by British police officials and submitted to a court that will be reviewing the case brought by Miranda for illegal detention. The notice details why Metropolitan Police believed the 2000 Terrorism Act authorized their action.

    From the Guardian article linked to above by OO (#67)

    “It became apparent during the court hearing that there were several drafts of the Port Circular Notice – the document used to request Miranda’s detention under schedule 7 to the 2000 Terrorism Act – before the final version was submitted.

    The draft that was finally used states: “Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security. We therefore wish to establish the nature of Miranda’s activity, assess the risk that Miranda poses to national security and mitigate as appropriate.”

    It has yet to be determined whether this claim has any foundation in the law itself.

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    “No one has charged Scahill or Miranda or Greenwald….

    Minor point: do you mean Laura Poitras? Scahill, to the best of my knowledge, has not been involved in the NSA surveillance reporting.

    And notable that this particular post has generated so much, um, interest, rather than dpm’s “Talking Heads” post on the NSA this morning. Strange, what the mere mention of Glenn Greenwald will provoke.

  99. 99
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Keith G:

    Because Snowden was “inspired” to do what he did in 2009 when it had been going on since at least 2005.

    Riiiight.

  100. 100
    Emma says:

    g @AxelFoley: I am beginning to realize how true this is. It is in fact possible to believe that the gentleman was actually committing a crime AND that the law sucks AND that the Brits acted out of what they consider their own interests. But no. It’s all about two white American men and their associates.

  101. 101
    PopeRatzo says:

    The only way the Snowden material can be considered “sensitive” is that it hurts the feefees of the sensitive souls like James Clapper and Keith Alexander and their oh-so-sensitive boss.

    Getting one’s dick caught in one’s zipper can be a sensitive situation.

  102. 102
    John Cole says:

    @FlipYrWhig: What part of “both here and over the pond” is eluding you, precious? Clearly I was aiming at the Brits while also noting things are out of control here, you itinerant fool.

    I’m this fucking close to installing a reading comprehension app to the comments section so people have to show some basic skills before commenting.

  103. 103
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): I’m going to the UK in the spring. Now I’m terrified I won’t be able to transport stolen government documents when I go! The chilling effect is appalling!

  104. 104
    Corner Stone says:

    @John Cole:

    AxelFoley can’t be so fucking stupid

    ….

  105. 105

    @Keith G:

    What could possibly be your motivation in calling me out for following your lead?

    You responded to my NATO comment, and I responded back. In what way is that me calling you out?

    My point is that the majority of Snowden’s revelations seem to be aimed at embarrassing NATO allies. You said, Read Gellman, but that doesn’t really answer the question, does it?

  106. 106
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @John Cole: No, no, like you I’ve long been terribly concerned about how the British government treats the handling of classified information in their statutes.

  107. 107
    gwangung says:

    Yes it is very important to concentrate on the personalities of the people, and ignore the issues that were raised.

    This is, in fact, what Snowden and Greenwald supporters are arguing; that because they are on the side of angels, that means the government are harassing them for no good reason.

    It’s a fallacious argument and gets in the way of trying to unwind over-reach of the security apparatus.

  108. 108
    John Cole says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Amazing how people outraged over Miranda’s being temporarily detained and then released just happen to gloss over the whole part where he had stolen classified documents on his person and that the UK was on the lookout for him because they suspected that he had them.

    Other than that, it was just like jaywalking!

    Then charge him under ESPIONAGE laws and make your fucking case, but quit pretending this is terrorism and using overly broad and ridiculous terrorism laws to detain and harass people.

    Can no one fucking read anymore?

  109. 109
    patrick II says:

    @askew:

    I am baffled that the U.S. government is above constitutional, national and international law.

  110. 110
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Again, according to Gellman, Snowden is not naive about the need for vigorous intelligence work. His aim has not end the normal progress of intel efforts. The thrust of his actions was (using Gellman as my source) was to give us the chance to see that an agency of our government was acting beyond its portfolio.

  111. 111
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @PopeRatzo:

    I’m starting to understand how many of you can convince yourself that a Heritage Foundation idea for “health care reform” is now a great liberal victory. Up is down and war is peace.

    Just today, I helped a family who is uninsured and facing nearly insurmountable medical bills so that Jan 1 they will be on medicaid because her junk insurance policy (which she just became eligible to enroll in) is invalidated as of Jan 1. It seems as though the hospital charges for his previous two stays will be covered by Medicaid as well, and thus, the family will be saved from financial ruin.

    That’s a pretty good thing.

  112. 112
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @John Cole:

    Then charge him under ESPIONAGE laws

    They _searched_ him under the Terrorism Act. Did they charge him with anything? If they prosecuted him, they could charge him with something else. If a cop searches you for driving erratically and finds stolen property in your car, you’re not going to get charged for the driving part when you finally end up in court.

  113. 113

    @John Cole:

    Then charge him under ESPIONAGE laws and make your fucking case, but quit pretending this is terrorism and using overly broad and ridiculous terrorism laws to detain and harass people.

    Are we back to asking why the UK didn’t extend 4th Amendment protections to a citizen of Brazil?

    I hate to break it to you, but as a US citizen, I have ZERO pull with the government of Great Britain to influence them to change their laws.  I can be outraged about them like I can be outraged by Iran sentencing rape victims to death, but there ain’t much I can do about them.  Harangue your UK readers if you want the UK to change its laws.

  114. 114
    Cervantes says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: I love your list! Couldn’t have done it better myself — so thanks.

  115. 115
    IM says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Neither are you. That kind of argument wasn’t great when someone explained to me that I wasn’t a military judge during the Manning controversies either.

  116. 116
    AxelFoley says:

    @Corner Stone:

    And you and Cole can’t be so fucking stupid as to see that he’s under the umbrella of white privilege. I guess you two asswipes don’t understand the racism prevalent in Brazil. Fuckin’ morons, the both of you.

  117. 117

    @Keith G:

    The thrust of his actions was (using Gellman as my source) was to give us the chance to see that an agency of our government was acting beyond its portfolio.

    And by “us” you mean citizens of (so far) the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, and Australia, correct?  Because, again, the majority of Snowden’s revelations have involved UK actions, not US actions, which is why I’m skeptical that his actions were born out of wanting US citizens to know what the US intelligence services were up to.

  118. 118
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @handsmile: No, I meant Scahill for his publication of info about the drone program. I was trying to broaden it beyond just the NSA stuff. It appears I muddied the waters instead.

    @John Cole:

    Clearly I was aiming at the Brits while also noting things are out of control here, you itinerant fool.

    Clearly you didn’t do a great job of it since a number of people were wondering where the US fit in.

  119. 119
    jon says:

    I’m for drug legalization, but if my hypothetical drug dealer spouse asked me to carry a package through an airport and across international borders, not knowing what’s in the package is not going to be much of an excuse. Shame on Greenwald for putting his husband through that. Shame on Miranda for putting himself through that.

    Idiot Drama Queens or Freedom Fighters for Liberty? Yes.

  120. 120
    fuckwit says:

    Can we please just declare victory in the War on Terror and go the fuck home now? This is stupid.

    Like the War On Drugs too. Just say “OK we won, now we’re going home”. Then legalize and tax/regulate pot, molly, LSD/mushrooms and any other similarly mostly-helpful and non-addicting drugs.

    As for “terror”, there are violent extremists around. We can catch them with normal police work and FUNDING to get that done, and probably some high-tech spycraft too, which should be regulated and more closely monitored by representatives of the public.

    Actually, we can solve both problems BY JUST GETTING THE VIOLENT EXTREMISTS REALLY FUCKING STONED. Then they won’t hurt anyone. Give them some molly, they’ll love everyone and dance all night to truly shitty music.

    Hmm, didn’t Timothy Leary do his pioneering work using LSD to treat violent criminals, reimprint them, and reform them? Maybe we can, instead of a stupid War on Terror and a stupider War on Drugs, use drugs to treat/heal/reform terrorists.

    Yeah I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

  121. 121
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @IM: I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying what either of us thinks has no bearing on what the courts in the UK will decide. I mean, if a federal court in the US can find that companies have religious liberties to trammel, which is beyond-the-pale stupid, I wouldn’t put it past a UK court to uphold something as squirrely as this.

    At any rate, it seems like they want to prove that the detention was legit under the Terrorism Act 2000. Is it? I dunno. Seems to me like the breadth of the law as written probably covers it, even if the spirit of the law doesn’t seem like Miranda’s case should qualify. But what I know about how the Brits interpret their laws is infinitesimal. Like John said, I’m an itinerant fool.

  122. 122
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    My point is that the majority of Snowden’s revelations seem to be aimed at embarrassing NATO allies.

    With respects, that is not what you typed. It seems to me that there is a difference between the above and this…

    that Snowden’s main purpose was to disrupt intelligence operations by NATO members.

    .

    We are on the same side on most issues, especially the important ones, so I don’t want to venture too far into the weeds. I just have been inclined to have a desire to suss out where the hyperbole about this case and it’s central figures comes from.

  123. 123
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Clearly you didn’t do a great job of it since a number of people were wondering where the US fit in.

    It’s clear a number of people decided to not understand. Then, surprisingly, did not understand!

  124. 124
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Though, really, it becomes more and more clear that Snowden’s main purpose was to disrupt intelligence operations by NATO members.

    Would love to know why you think this was his “main purpose.” (And yes, I read the linked article — for which thanks.)

    No wonder he fled to China and Russia rather than, say, Sweden.

    But there is another (and simpler) explanation.

  125. 125
    gwangung says:

    We are on the same side on most issues, especially the important ones, so I don’t want to venture too far into the weeds

    May I interject that this is a pretty important statement?

    No? Well, damn….

  126. 126
    IM says:

    @jon:

    But Greenwald isn’t a hypothetical terrorist either.

  127. 127

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Clearly you didn’t do a great job of it since a number of people were wondering where the US fit in.

    Frankly, that’s why so many of the Snowden/Greenwald threads become so contentious.  As I pointed out, the majority of Snowden’s revelations so far have been about the actions of the UK and other European intelligence services, and then we all get harangued about the evils of the NSA spying on US citizens and wait, what the hell?  

    If someone would show me what the UK terrorism statutes that they passed in 2000 have to do with the allegations of the NSA spying on US citizens, I’ll be happy to be outraged, but a nebulous It’s all about the security state! mash-up doesn’t really help me.

  128. 128
    Corner Stone says:

    @AxelFoley: Are you, badly, trying to assert that Miranda being stopped in the UK is related to Miranda being under the umbrella of white privilege in Brazil?
    I apologize but your pronouns confused me.

  129. 129
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Time for me to read what I’m supposed to be reading. Hugs and kisses, everybody!

  130. 130
    Jane2 says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): the UK has its own espionage law. That is not the statute under which Miranda was charged.

  131. 131
    gwangung says:

    @IM: So, basically, we should be adjusting the laws depending on the person involved?

    I don’t think that’s a good argument.

  132. 132
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @John Cole:

    I’m waiting for you to begin your crusade against “obstructed view” traffic laws and their (mis)applications- basically stop-and-frisk for people who drive (that is, for that part of the poor and/or minority population of the US that isn’t walking around NYC).

    I ain’t holding my breath, though.

  133. 133
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Finally, what you should be reading!

  134. 134
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Jane2: When was he charged, and with what?

  135. 135

    @Keith G:

    I am in the camp that believes that Snowden is not an innocent whistle-blower who just happened to stumble across information that was embarrassing to the US and its allies. I think he ran to China and Russia with that information not out of some kind of idealistic information wants to be free! impulse, but with the purpose of selling that information to them and (secondarily) embarrassing the US and its allies.

    Is that clear enough? The fact that he also managed to expose the NSA information doesn’t magically wash him clean of his other actions.

  136. 136
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): (OK, this is my last thing.) It’s the question of “we” again. I’d rather be concerned with the “we” of the US than the “we” of, I dunno, “the West” or “the Anglo-sphere” or something. The UK has surveillance cameras everywhere. Sounds like overkill to me. But I’d rather fight about the deeds of the government whose officials I elect and under whose jurisdiction I am 24/7 than spend a lot of time worrying about surveillance and civil liberties in some other country. It’s probably pretty bad in Kyrgyzstan too, but the number of ways that affects me are… And I don’t remember this much concern over the civil liberties of, say, Syrians or Libyans. The general attitude was, “Pfft, let them deal with it.” So… let the Brits deal with their own “security state” and we can raise the hue and cry about ours. Deal?

  137. 137
    IM says:

    @gwangung:

    what? No, I argued that you should be involved in terrorist activities to be under the scope of an terrorism act. And neither Miranda nor people associated with him (Greenwald) are.

    Look, I know Greenwald-hating is popular here, but you can`t seriously say that he is an terrorist. And while obviously what Snowden did was illegal, he isn’t a terrorist either.

  138. 138
    Keith G says:

    Though this is beyond sensible hope, it would be nice if many here would listen to this 47 min interview with Barton Gellman about his work on the Snowden revelations/leaks. It provides much “food for thought” and highlights important parts of the story that do not get much mention in the regular press.

    edit…@Mnemosyne (iPhone): Listen to the interview when you have a chance. I will relisten. Sometime (much) later, I would like to hear/read your reaction.

  139. 139
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: Zing! I’m outski now for realz.

  140. 140

    Anyone still want to mock Snowden for having the good common sense to flee to Hong Kong or Russia?

    Yes. Because if there are two places on this Earth known for being bastions of freedom and civil f’ing liberties, it’s China and Russia. The fact that Greenwald and his followers still see the United States as being the uniquely bad actor in the world when it comes to all things bespeaks a delusional myopia.

  141. 141

    @Jane2:

    David Miranda has not been charged with anything, including by the UK. He is suing them for unlawful detention, but they are not prosecuting him for anything at all.

  142. 142
    sm*t cl*de says:

    didn’t Timothy Leary do his pioneering work using LSD to treat violent criminals, reimprint them, and reform them?

    No, that project involved psilocybin.

  143. 143
    fuckwit says:

    @Comrade Dread: It’s what a sociology professor of mine once called “reverse ethnocentrism”. It’s a common problem of sophomoric college students, and was hugely epidemic in the 1960s.

    Ethnocentrism is thinking that your ethnicity is uniquely awesome and everyone else sucks. Reverse ethnocentrism is a teenage disease, thinking that your ethnicity is uniquely awful and sucky and all the other ethnicities are so much better.

    The USA is almost certainly the most advancd and capable spy power on the planet at the moment, so yeah, attacking and exposing its capabilities is an understandable target for reformers. However, is our power the most abused, least controlled, most corrupt on the planet? I hightly doubt it, and I’d bet that Snowden’s choices of sanctuary countries are not nearly as clean as we are in that area.

  144. 144

    @Keith G:

    I looked at the excerpts but won’t have a chance to listen until tomorrow. Does Gelman include the South China Morning Post as one of the three journalists that Snowden shared his documents with?

    And, frankly, I think Gelman is being a little naive if he thinks that Russia wasn’t given the same documents he was. Maybe that’s why he only specified the “journalists” who had them.

  145. 145
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @IM: Look, I know Greenwald-hating is popular here, but you can`t seriously say that he is an terrorist. And while obviously what Snowden did was illegal, he isn’t a terrorist either.

    I don’t think anyone has defended the UK’s use of “terrorism” here, but the notion that Miranda’s nine hour detention and the confiscation of illegally obtained materials is a historic violation of human rights, or is in any meaningful way related to the domestic activities of NSA is, to me, irritating. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, so I don’t actually believe that Greenwald was trying to provoke a confrontation with the British government, but that would actually give me more respect for his intelligence. As with Snowden’s flight to China, I cannot believe that these grown ass adults who decided to play at being digital revolutionaries and amateur spies have been so incredibly naive at going about it.

  146. 146
    Cassidy says:

    How in the hell did one place end up with three front pagers who have serious daddy issues? For fucks sake, follow sports like everyone else who needs a hero to brighten your life.

  147. 147
    fuckwit says:

    @sm*t cl*de: Awesome, well there you go.

    That’s my new platform. I’m going to run for office on it. I think it’s a solution that needs to sweep the nation:

    End the War on Drugs. End the War on Terror. Instead let’s have: DRUGS FOR TERRORISTS!

    Fnord.

  148. 148
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): That you are impuning an important journalist’s professional insights before a thorough hearing is troubling. I will let him address your concerns. As I recall your issues are mentioned – but it’s been a while which is why I need to relisten.

  149. 149
    IM says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I don’t think anyone has defended the UK’s use of “terrorism” here

    But isn’t that the point?

    And overusing the terrorism laws for everything is the problem, even if the single instances are not historic human right violations.

    And Snowden and China or whatever isn’t relevant to that point.

  150. 150
    jon says:

    @IM: Yeah, Greenwald’s just the most famous dealer in illicit secrets outside of Ecuador’s Embassy in London.

    They needed an incident to get in the papers and promote Greenwald’s career. They got it. They’re still getting it. But if they’re going to do the nonviolent resistance thing and want to get caught and show the injustice of it all, they can’t whine about it. Getting caught and imprisoned for your beliefs is what it’s about. Remember Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Motel 6? No, because that didn’t have much political impact. Sometimes being a revolutionary will be inconvenient. Sorry, but that’s how it works.

    I know British courts are different, but suing the government for investigating crimes when they found illegal documents on the person is about as likely to succeed as a civil rights case saying there was no probable cause when Willie Nelson’s tour bus gets pulled over. Guessing that Greenwald set the whole thing up for publicity and to allow the governments to see what he had doesn’t make me sympathize for him. Greenwald is about Greenwald, and he’ll fuck over his husband, his sources, and governments to promote himself.

  151. 151
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    As with Snowden’s flight to China, I cannot believe that these grown ass adults who decided to play at being digital revolutionaries and amateur spies have been so incredibly naive at going about it.

    Naive? Maybe. Maybe not.

  152. 152
    Andrey says:

    @John Cole:

    Then charge him under ESPIONAGE laws and make your fucking case, but quit pretending this is terrorism and using overly broad and ridiculous terrorism laws to detain and harass people.

    To detain and harass people who may be carrying stolen state secrets? Look, you’re not ever going to get sympathy for people who got “harassed” for potentially carrying stolen state secrets. This is not an old lady getting strip-searched for having a bottle of water that’s slightly too large. That would get you sympathy and agreement. And it has in the past. Pretty sure there’s plenty of posts on this very blog decrying that kind of actual overreach.

  153. 153
    shepherdwong says:

    I tweeted that Post idiot (redundant?) Jonathan Capehart, when he said Snowden should have just turned himself in. Something like “because torture and solitary-confinement-while-naked worked out so well for Corporal Manning.”

  154. 154
    Jane2 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Sorry…”held”, not “charged”.

  155. 155
    rikyrah says:

    And Greenwald used his boo as an info mule.

    What a charmer.

  156. 156
    IM says:

    @jon:

    As you perfectly well know, he isn’t in any way a “dealer”. Do you confuse him with a bond villain or something? And that isn’t “terrorism”. If you have – as claimed here again and again – some legal reason to stop somebody then use that legal reason. And don’t make up some nonsense about terrorism. Or “dealing”.

  157. 157

    Okay, I desperately need to go grocery shopping, so I’ll leave this philosophical musing as my last word:

    In retrospect, looking at the long sweep of history, the Rosenbergs were right to give nuclear bomb information to the Soviets. If the US had remained the sole possessors of that knowledge, it would have led to disaster. But that doesn’t make what they did right, or mean that the US government shouldn’t have prosecuted them for doing it. The fact that it worked out for the best doesn’t wipe away the crime.

  158. 158
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Holy. Fucking. Shit.

  159. 159
    Keith G says:

    @fuckwit:

    and I’d bet that Snowden’s choices of sanctuary countries are not nearly as clean as we are in that area.

    It gets repeated so much that it is now conventional wisdom, but Snowdon did not plan or want to be in China or Russia as a place of sanctuary. As best I remember reading, his ultimate wish was to get to Iceland, but that became not possible, thus far.

    What others tend to overlook, is that after the original transfers, he did not travel with the leaked intel. AFAIR it was not with him in China, and it certainly is not with him in Russia. He has no need for it. It has all been turned over. According to Gellman is is not even physically possible for Snowden to access any of the leaked intel from where he has traveled after the transfer. This was a designed precaution purposely engineered by Snowden. Snowden understands how foreign intel services work and he did not want them obtaining the raw data.

  160. 160

    Really last thing: everyone here is aware that the UK terrorism statutes were passed in response to repeated bombings over the course of decades by the IRA and not a single 9/11 type of incident, right? Unlike the US, they actually did have a real problem with actual terrorists setting bombs off multiple times. Our two countries are not perfect analogues when it comes to our experience with terrorism.

  161. 161
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @shepherdwong:
    I didn’t know Snowden was a Corporal.

    Speaking of Snowden,
    @Keith G:
    Honest, nonsnarkified question: is there something in the Barton Gellman reading that specifically debunks this?

  162. 162
    Keith G says:

    @A Humble Lurker: Would it matter if there was?

    Cole used to be a Republican. My neighbor used to be straight. People change.

    Edit..Below the link’s headline…

    And it’s hardly a perfect parallel; Snowden was upset about leaks over US covert operations in Iran, which is different from the domestic spying and offensive cyberwar programs he felt compelled to make public.

  163. 163
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Darreltown. That’s good shit.

  164. 164
    I am not a kook says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I am in the camp that believes that Snowden is not an innocent whistle-blower who just happened to stumble across information that was embarrassing to the US and its allies. I think he ran to China and Russia with that information not out of some kind of idealistic information wants to be free! impulse, but with the purpose of selling that information to them and (secondarily) embarrassing the US and its allies.

    This doesn’t make any sense.

    The information that he grabbed would have been way more valuable to the Russians and/or Chinese if he hadn’t FIRST given it to multiple news outlets. Because a secret known by all is pretty meh.

    You’re skating around saying he was a Russian spy to begin with. If you think so, just say it.

    It doesn’t seem like he’s gotten much mileage out the Russians. Sure, he got a supposed job at Russian Facebook equivalent (but if his manager allows him to plug into their corporate network, s/he is certainly not playing with a full deck). Woohoo, career! They’re even telling him if he goes to Germany, that’s the end of his asylum.

    Your second reason, embarrassing US and allies, doesn’t sound plausible to what I’ve read about Snowden. He doesn’t seem political in that way at all. I’m supposed to believe he hates America so much he wants to embarrass the US by SELLING information to its enemies? Does. not. compute.

    But my mind reading machine tells me that you are equating “embarrassing US” with “embarrassing the Obama administration”. So the unclean must be attacked. Aren’t you at all discomfited finding yourself on the side of the spook industrial complex?

    This is not a good vs evil story. It’s more like Damages; everybody is a raging asshole.

    Here’s what I think: Snowden is a cipher (he might even be an earnest dumbass). His time on the stage is over, these new stories are not coming from him, but from the files he gave to journos and their independent digging afterwards. I think he’ll be back in the US within a year, facing trial. Greenwald gets props for using his clout to break the story. I’m glad other, more professional journalists are continuing digging since Greenwald is in over his head (check him yelling at his BBC interviewer recently). NSA et al have clearly been overstepping their supposed boundaries and have tried collecting information on every fucking human on the planet. I for one am glad we now know (something) about it.

  165. 165
    Thlayli says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Do you have an actual argument to make? All I’m seeing from you is “You’re so fucking stupid, Mnemosyne.”

  166. 166
    jon says:

    @IM: An analogy is a method of comparison designed to… oh, I fucking give up. If you want to hold Tommy Chong’s carry-on bag, that’s your fucking right.

  167. 167
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @IM:

    If you have – as claimed here again and again – some legal reason to stop somebody then use that legal reason.

    The legal reason is that “terrorism” as defined in the statute is very broad. That would seem to be a problem with the writing of the statute, as various people have pointed out, including John. (The statute as originally written had granted even broader powers that authorized searches _without suspicion_!) But that’s evidence of a badly written law being used as written, not of a violation of the law.

  168. 168
    Stillwater says:

    @FlipYrWhig: But that’s evidence of a badly written law being used as written, not of a violation of the law.

    Which is John’s point, no?

  169. 169
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @I am not a kook:

    Aren’t you at all discomfited finding yourself on the side of the spook industrial complex?

    Considering that the recent protest against NSA spying included groups like the Oath Keepers, I’m not sure guilt by association is going to hold up all that well for either side.

  170. 170
    Stillwater says:

    @Thlayli: All I’m seeing from you is “You’re so fucking stupid, Mnemosyne.”

    In my experience, that’s usually enough.

  171. 171
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Stillwater: That was the point he said had been his point, yes. The original point was that “We’re All Terrorists Now,” because apparently “we” all do things that could be covered by the Terrorism Act 2000 when we’re on UK soil, which is A Problem. Of course the point we actually agreed on was also the point of departure for Ye Flippinge of Ye Shytte, so, who knows.

  172. 172
    I am not a kook says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Yes, because Oath Keepers and NSA are equivalent. Are you saying that we have to choose sides: it’s either with the Oath Keepers or the NSA, no other positions are allowed? What the fuck is it with some people seeing only black and white? Have fun in your little purity pit.

  173. 173
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Stillwater: Once he made the actual point in the comments, yes.

  174. 174
    Hawes says:

    Hmmm, how many journalists have been killed in Russia?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....onflict.29

    200?

    Beacon of freedom, that place.

  175. 175
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @I am not a kook: I had a response that disappeared, but the upshot was that I _don’t_ think any guilt by association argument is all that effective, either saying if you’re anti-Snowden/Greenwald then you’re pro-NSA, or saying that if you’re pro-Snowden/Greenwald then you’re pro-Paul/Koch/militia paranoiacs.

  176. 176
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Keith G:
    Seems a little naive to simply brush it off as a change of heart to me, considering the countries he ran off to. He must have had one hell of come to Jesus moment…or a hell of an incentive to change his mind.

    Honestly though, he could just be very, very dim. Too dim to be of use to the free information cause.

  177. 177
    Hawes says:

    Everyone knows that Britain doesn’t have a bill of rights, right? I mean, they have a “Bill of Rights” but it is nothing like ours, it offers no protections to British citizens (or Brazilian citizens) and there is no constitution like ours to protect basic rights. Anything Parliament does is, by definition, constitutional.

    So if Parliament says that terrorism includes embarrassing the US and NATO, then really there isn’t much you can say against it.

    For me the distressing thing about the NSA stuff is the failure of the courts to rein it in. We DO have these protections, but they aren’t being used as vigorously as I would hope.

  178. 178
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @A Humble Lurker: I think we are well past the point where Snowden’s motivations matter. Past the point of Snowden mattering for that matter.

  179. 179
    I am not a kook says:

    @FlipYrWhig: So in your world, Oath Keepers and NSA have the same weight and influence. What color is the sky?

    Yes, I thought it was appropriate to ask a “liberal” commenter why she is defending NSA/GCHQ/etc actions with such ferocity. Your response was to bring in the damn Oath Keepers. Because nobody but disreputable groups like them has voiced opposition to the data collection, right?

  180. 180
    I am not a kook says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Oh FFS. Like I said, I think Snowden is a dumbass, Greenwald is a pompous ass with a megaphone, NSA brass are paranoid maniac asses (I sense a theme here). I’m not taking either “side”.

  181. 181
    Stillwater says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Once he made the actual point in the comments, yes.

    OO, that assumes it wasn’t clear on the OP. Sure, some were confused. But I don’t think that’s John’s fault. His point was pretty effing clear.

  182. 182
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @I am not a kook: Who’s defending the NSA et al? No one is. You’re just trying to score cheap points by saying that being skeptical about anti-NSA et al stories is the same as defending the agencies. And that’s as cheap as it would be to say that Greenwald and Snowden shouldn’t be believed because they’re aligned with anti-government paranoids. There are a lot of other reasons to believe or disbelieve, or to care or not to care. Who’s aligned with whom is beside the point.

  183. 183
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Stillwater: The first sentence led me to believe that some connection to the US would be found in the article. Maybe I misinterpreted, but I think Cole wasn’t clear. I don’t think it is worth arguing about though, since Cole, in his own charming way, did make it clear later.

  184. 184
    Cacti says:

    What’s this “we” stuff you’re talking about, white man. You have a mouse in your pocket or something?

    Personally, I never have and never will mule stolen NatSec info through the secure area of a foreign nation’s airport.

    Cole also never describes it as above, as it tends to make his frenzied complaints sound patently ridiculous.

  185. 185
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Stillwater: If that was the point of the post, giving it that title was a curious decision.

  186. 186
    Cacti says:

    @I am not a kook:

    You’re skating around saying he was a Russian spy to begin with. If you think so, just say it.

    Okay, I’ll say it.

    Edward Snowden is an asset of Russian intelligence. None of his leaks to date have had anything to say concerning Russia, and all of them involve nations that are not particularly Russia-friendly. And that’s aside from first fleeing to Hong Kong and then to Moscow, with an assist from the very Russia-friendly wikileaks.

  187. 187
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Cacti: “We’re” defining everything as “terrorism” now! Even something as innocent as… smuggling intelligence documents? OK, fine, let’s agree that smuggling intelligence documents isn’t terrorism as most anybody would ever reasonably understand it, but that’s pretty flimsy evidence for an out of control “security state.”

  188. 188
    chopper says:

    @Cacti:

    i know that i’ll think twice next time i try to carry stolen british classified documents through heathrow. to think those grasping power-mad assholes would detain and release me under a terrorism statute instead of espionage, well that just clinches it. i’m ferrying stolen classified documents through somewhere else from now on.

  189. 189
    Cacti says:

    @Corner Stone:

    let’s not forget about the case of Kim Dotcom

    Would that be the same Kim Dotcom with the history of computer fraud, data espionage, and insider trading convictions going back to 1994?

    Probably all Obama’s fault.

  190. 190
    YAFB says:

    I’m getting a severe case of deja vu here.

    To save me much more typing (and rehashing what folks like FlipYrLid have been pointing out upthread), a lot of this was thrashed out with slightly different personas and a variety of different and more or less colorful swearywords on this earlier Ballon Juice thread from August, which you may or may not wish to start reading with this comment (you can start earlier if you want some background to the Terrorism Act 200 and Schedule 7, but it’s been posted upthread anyway):

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    That could conceivably encompass seeing the Guardian provided lawyer within eight hours of detention.

    Yes. The whole argument from civil rights activists in the UK has been that the police are allowed too much discretion in their conduct by how the law’s drafted. Aside from the provision of a translator, nobody’s proven yet that they contravened it, but we’ll see what happens in court.

    It’s just galling to have all this special pleading and hair-on-fire rants about supposed victimization of a Greenwald family member when “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day, and may well be treated far worse than Miranda was without similar grounds for suspicion.

    Which thread eventually ended after my being called a liar etc. etc. yadayayada by a certain troll (and earlier a paid shill by another one w00t!) with this comment:

    Onemorelurker says:
    August 24, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Yeah, David fucking Miranda is so much more special than the 70000 people stopped under this law.

    http://schedule7stories.com/st…..e-airport/

    So welcome to my fucking world. The only major revelation relating to all this that I’ve seen since then was an interview with Greenwald where he claimed that he and the Guardian were “shocked” that Miranda was stopped in transit through Heathrow because they never imagined it would happen.

    Do I believe that? Pass.

  191. 191
    YAFB says:

    I’m getting a severe case of deja vu here.

    To save me much more typing (and rehashing what folks like FlipYrLid have been pointing out upthread), a lot of this was thrashed out with slightly different personas and a variety of different and more or less colorful swearywords on this earlier Balloon Juice thread from August, which you may or may not wish to start reading with this comment (you can start earlier if you want some background to the Terrorism Act 200 and Schedule 7, but it’s been posted upthread anyway):

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    That could conceivably encompass seeing the Guardian provided lawyer within eight hours of detention.

    Yes. The whole argument from civil rights activists in the UK has been that the police are allowed too much discretion in their conduct by how the law’s drafted. Aside from the provision of a translator, nobody’s proven yet that they contravened it, but we’ll see what happens in court.

    It’s just galling to have all this special pleading and hair-on-fire rants about supposed victimization of a Greenwald family member when “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day, and may well be treated far worse than Miranda was without similar grounds for suspicion.

    Which thread eventually ended after my being called a liar etc. etc. yadayayada by a certain troll (and earlier a paid shill by another one w00t!) with this comment:

    Onemorelurker says:

    Yeah, David fucking Miranda is so much more special than the 70000 people stopped under this law.

    http://schedule7stories.com/st…..e-airport/

    So welcome to my fucking world.

    The only major revelation relating to all this that I’ve seen since then was an interview with Greenwald where he claimed that he and the Guardian were “shocked” that Miranda was stopped in transit through Heathrow because they never imagined it would happen.

    Do I believe that? Pass.

  192. 192
    chopper says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    yeah, but if somebody sneaking stolen classified documents through the UK can be detained for 8 hours and released under british terrorism statutes, then all of us, including the rest of us here in the ol’ US of A are…totes…something.

  193. 193
    Keith G says:

    @A Humble Lurker:

    Seems a little naive to simply brush it off as a change of heart to me, considering the countries he ran off to.

    Jiminy Crickets.

    Once again, he is not in Russia because of his original plan. So, to impeach his credibility by asserting his choice to run to Russia is less than worthwhile. He is in Russia because he was stopped from going further. His desire was to go elsewhere.

  194. 194
    chopper says:

    the most amazing thing to me is that miranda is actually suing to get the stolen documents back.

    i’ll admit that takes some balls. it’s also insane, but balls too.

  195. 195
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @YAFB: I wondered if you were going to stop by.

  196. 196
    Keith G says:

    @Cacti:

    Okay, I’ll say it.

    Edward Snowden is an asset of Russian intelligence.

    Well, it’s good to get the wild, fact-free assertions over with.

  197. 197
    Cacti says:

    @Keith G:

    Well, it’s good to get the wild, fact-free assertions over with.

    Yep, if you’re just willing overlook everything you omitted from your reply, Moscow Ed is just an innocent victim of something something.

  198. 198
    Cassidy says:

    The new Balloon Juice theme song. Daddy issues…get some help people.

  199. 199
    Cacti says:

    @chopper:

    the most amazing thing to me is that miranda is actually suing to get the stolen documents back.

    i’ll admit that takes some balls. it’s also insane, but balls too.

    Miranda’s just a useful idiot for his beau, who is most certainly pulling his strings.

  200. 200
    YAFB says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Heh. You don’t wanna know the length of my tongue right now, but it’s been heartening to see good info doing the rounds earlier in the thread without my participation.

    I think I also (in that thread or an earlier one) pointed toward the justifications the authorities are actually relying on to justify Miranda’s detention.

  201. 201
    Higgs Boson's Mate (Crystal Set) says:

    When I hear Astrud, jasmine fills the air.

  202. 202
    Cacti says:

    I’ll happily join the side of the dudebros and pronounce John Cole the most righteous defender of liberty if any of them can:

    Point me to the treaty, section of the UN charter, or norm of international law that enshrines a right to mule stolen materials across international borders.

  203. 203
    Stillwater says:

    @FlipYrWhig: but that’s pretty flimsy evidence for an out of control “security state.”

    People – like you – keep focusing on the fact that documents were obtained, as if that’s a justification for detaining and interrogating a private citizen en route to their home country. That’s the point at which the “out of control” cricitism enters.

    Your argument justifies the detention because they found some incriminating documents. What would your view be if they didn’t? And the presupposition which motivated law the state to act was merely Miranda’s association with Greenwald. Do you think state-determined “association” is sufficient for government to violate basic freedoms?

  204. 204
    Keith G says:

    @Cacti:

    Moscow Ed is just an innocent victim of something something.

    Another wild, fact-free assertion since no one here is making that point.

    Wanna go for the hat-trick?

  205. 205
    Cacti says:

    @Keith G:

    Another wild, fact-free assertion since no one here is making that point.

    Wanna go for the hat-trick?

    So which was the fact free assertion?

    That Ed fled to Hong Kong then Moscow?

    That Ed has not leaked any info on Russia?

    That Ed, to date, has only leaked info on the US and US-friendly nations?

    I understand that all of these facts don’t help the cause of the dudebro messiah, but it doesn’t make them less factual.

  206. 206
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @YAFB: Stories about authorities jacking up environmentalists and Quakers with surveillance powers granted by the Patriot Act, or jacking up people photographing churches in the UK under the Terrorism Act (see upstream), are pretty solid complaints about security concerns run amok. I can dig it. Stories about jacking up a guy who _really was_ doing something with classified information… that strikes me as an exceptionally bad basis for complaint. Because, as Cole himself was reduced to saying, charging him with espionage would be hunky-dory, but holding him under suspicion of terrorism broadly considered (which, as we’ve said, includes a lot of things that seem tangential to terrorism per se because of the drafting of the law) is a bridge too far? Is carrying classified information effectively as far from terrorism as jaywalking, seriously? Come on. Surely there are better arguments than this.

  207. 207

    @Keith G:

    Once again, he is not in Russia because of his original plan.

    Assuming, of course, that Snowden is completely open and honest about his motives, associations, and what information he has access to. Both you and Gellman seem a little credulous on that score, frankly. I guess it was just a magical coincidence that Snowden timed his revelations about the US spying on China with a meeting where the US was going to protest Chinese cyberspying on the US (see the link provided at #151 for details).

    I know it’s cynical of me, but I have a hard time believing in the basic honesty of a guy who admits that he hacked other users’ passwords to gain information above his security level. I just can’t help but think that maybe he’s not 100 percent honest in other areas of the story, too.

  208. 208
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Stillwater:

    People – like you – keep focusing on the fact that documents were obtained, as if that’s a justification for detaining and interrogating a private citizen en route to their home country. That’s the point at which the “out of control” cricitism enters.

    Uh, well, see, the justification was, to quote the OP, “Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security.” That’s hardly “out of control.” Maybe it would be “out of control” if they just happened to randomly search him and, lo and behold, secret documents. You could justly say that the fact that random groundless searches sometimes turn up incriminating information doesn’t validate random groundless searches. Agreed. But acting on a tip from intelligence is practically the _opposite_ of being out of control. They had a tip about espionage, so they stopped and searched him, and found stuff in his possession that suggested… espionage. That just sounds like police work, no?

  209. 209

    @Stillwater:

    The British suspected Miranda would be carrying documents and put out an alert to watch for him before his plane ever landed.

    If the police get a tip that a specific, named person will be trying to ferry drugs through the airport, and when they stop that person, they actually do have drugs on them, is that an unfair infringement on the drug mule’s civil rights?

    Again: contrary to Greenwald’s initial claims, the British government has submitted evidence that they had specific suspicions about Miranda and arrested him based on those suspicions. And your stance is that the police can never stop anyone they have specific information about? Or is it only people who have a personal relationship with GG who should get a free pass?

  210. 210
    Keith G says:

    @Cacti: Point One has been adequately covered more than once.

    The other two points are at the very least undeterminable at this time by any here. Snowden is not the person releasing this information nor is he able to dictate the timing and content of what is being released. The reporters have what they have and they are going through it on their time table. Those reporters are not giving in depth previews, so I do not know the topics of all the documentation. Do you?

  211. 211
    Corner Stone says:

    @Thlayli: She’s a congenital liar and the most dishonest, disturbed, piece of shit human being I have ever encountered on the intertrons.
    Does that help?

  212. 212
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Cacti:

    So which was the fact free assertion?

    That Saint Edward The Martyr and Saint Glenn are nothing but immaculate, their motives pure as driven snow, their actions only driven by the candy gum drops in their hearts.

    I’m Rand Paul, and I approve this message, because I’m going to need another round of incensed both sides are bad old white folk of privilege if I’m ever going to get into the White House and put them uppity takers in their place.

  213. 213
    Corner Stone says:

    @Cacti: Hahahaha…oh, wait. That’s your response?
    Ok, then. You’re a fucking moron.

  214. 214
    YAFB says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I agree with John (or he belatedly agrees with me, probably never having read the earlier thread …) — and, funnily enough, you — that the definition of “terrorism” under current UK law is far too widely drafted, and I’d add that Schedule 7 in particular is a statute that might as well have been purposely drafted (and has been used since its enactment) to sanction blatant abuse.

    I agree with you that the Miranda case is probably not be the best one on which to challenge this law if we want a positive result given the grounds for suspicion, and we have yet to see whether the courts will uphold it. Luckily, Liberty (the rough UK equivalent to the ACLU), while decrying Snowden’s detention on principle, has another more clear-cut case in train in the European Court of Human Rights that may or may not eventually get some results.

    As for the Espionage Act etc., I’d advise people to be careful what they wish for.

  215. 215
    mclaren says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    No, actually you’re in the camp of “I reflexively raise my right hand in a salute and click my heels whenever the People In Authority in America commit any new atrocity against the constitution, and I also bitterly condemn anyone in America who espouses the basic values of the constitution.”

    And the reason you’re in that camp, Mnemosyne, is that you’re a quisling and a cowardly bully worshiper. If this were 1930, you’d be explaining to us why Stalin is the great hero of the Soviet people and anyone who points out that he tortures and murders and starves millions of his own people is a traitor who seeks to undermine the great cause of socialism. And if this were 1935, you’d be explaining to us why Hitler is the great hero of the German people and anyone who point out that he tortured and murders and starves millions of his own people is a traitor who seeks to undermine the great leap forward of the New Germany. And if this were 1973, you’d be explaining to us why Pol Pot is the great hero of the Cambodian people and anyone who points out that he tortures and murders and starves millions of his own people is a traitor who seeks to destroy the tremendous leap into the future represented by Year Zero.

    Face it, Mnemosyne, you’ve never met a jackbooted thug you didn’t like — and the flipside of that kind of craven toadying to totalitarianism is that you have to reflexively condemn anyone who speaks out in favor of free speech, common human decency, the right of privacy, the right of the people to be secure in the persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be secure against cruel and unusual punishments, the right to due process under the law, the right to a trial before a jury of your peers, the right to habeas corpus, and a host of other rights your corporate-enslaved soul despises in the same way that a vampire despises sunlight.

  216. 216
    mclaren says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    That Saint Edward The Martyr and Saint Glenn are nothing but immaculate, their motives pure as driven snow, their actions only driven by the candy gum drops in their hearts.

    Congratulations on the most absurd straw man claim ever made on this forum. By the way, you forget to claim that the defenders of Ed Snowden also said he was the reincarnation of the Buddha, the risen Christ triumphant, and the second coming of the Prophet Mohammed. You also neglected to claim that Snowden’s supporters assert that Snowden has magical superpowers and rides a unicorn and shoots rainbows out his ass that destroy all efforts at subterfuge and malefaction by evil government bureaucrats.

    But I’m sure you’ll rectify those omissions in your next post. Meanwhile, go away, little kiddie. The adults are having a conversation here.

  217. 217
    piratedan says:

    a question that I’ve always wondered about….

    Miranda was carrying documents lifted by Snowden on his person by electronic means, either on a thumb drive or a hard drive, encrypted or not. The documents had been given to him by Poitras, correct, post a meeting with Snowden to be taken back to Greenwald, for whatever purpose.

    If it was known that the Brits have these prohibitive laws in place with a broad definition of Terrorism and espionage and the transport of illegal documents… and I would have to assume that Wikileaks, Greenwald and Ms Poitras would be familiar with this… why in the fuck would you fly his ass through Heathrow for his return to Brazil?

  218. 218
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @YAFB: I don’t think I ever said anything in favor of the spirit of the pertinent UK law. It seems to me that it’s over-broad, but that, perhaps _because_ of its over-broad-ness, it also seems like the UK is technically correct to cite it in the context of this case. I’ve never been of the opinion that _this particular case_ appears to be a particularly ominous development. There are plenty of ominous developments, but this? The NSA stories are all FAR more ominous than this, because they involve surveillance in the absence of probable cause. Even the stories I would say have been exaggerated or misinterpreted are much better bases for a discussion about the “security state,” because they raise important issues. What’s the important issue this raises? That being in possession of classified information is more like espionage than it is like terrorism?

  219. 219
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Both you and Gellman seem a little credulous on that score

    Including me in the same sentence as Gellman confers a status that I do not deserve.

    Thus far, Barton Gellman has been a reporter’s reporter. He has a rep for getting important stories and getting them right. His primary beat included national security,and intelligence.

    At a time when we moan about lazy, tire-swinging reporters, Gellman seems to be a throwback to a time of careful professionalism. I will trust his reporting until I see a reason not to.

  220. 220
    amk says:

    quitcher whining cole. No nation, including your beloved russia, is going to sit on its ass, while its secrets are being spilled. gigi just used his bf as a drug mule and the mule paid for it while gigi makes money.

  221. 221
    YAFB says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    P.S. I apologize for mangling your nym above (don’t know where TF my interpretation came from since we’ve been knocking about for years now), but I’ve just come in from watching a shit-hot jazz band at our village hall, so I wasn’t exactly bargaining for WWIII when I idly clicked in here, and I’m about +3 right now, which isn’t disabling, but has taken the edge off to an extent. I also apologize for the double post above — version 2 was my attempt not to end up in moderation hell for the rest of the evening owing to including too many links in version 1. In the end, both got through and made me look a bit of an arse. Oh well.

  222. 222
    different-church-lady says:

    Only 4 dTB? I’m disappointed people, step it up.

  223. 223
    mclaren says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Assuming, of course, that Snowden is completely open and honest about his motives, associations, and what information he has access to.

    No, that assumption is not required. Fact: Ed Snowden revealed systematic massive violation of five amendments of the constitution by the Federal Goverment on an ongoing basis. Ed Snowden revealed high crimes perpetrated and authorized by the highest levels of government — the executive branch, the congress, and the brueaucratic and administrative agencies tasked with carrying out legislation. The crimes Snowden revealed include (but are not limited to):

    [1] Violation of the fourth amendment right of the people to be secure in the homes and in their persons against unreasonable search and seizure;

    [2] Violation of the fifth amendment requirement of due process of law;

    [3] Violation of the sixth amendment requirement “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence;”

    [4] Violation of the fourteenth amendment requirement that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land”;

    [5] Violation of the first amendment requirement “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Each of these violations of the constitution is a high crime and an impeachable offense. Each of these violations of the constitution strikes at the very heart of a free society. Once you have a process whereby any person’s life data can be arbtirarily searched without a search warrant or any kind of due process, the chains have been forged for the tyrant’s dungeon. Once a free society sets up a bureacracy which without any kind of due process of law capriciously targets individuals for these kinds of invasive searches, the society has ceased to be free and now becomes a gulag-in-waiting. Once a chief executive sets of a system in which the individual citizens get targeted, scrutinized, evidence is collected against them, and their lives ruined or destroyed without any opportunity to learn the reason why they were targeted and what alleged evidence was collected and how it was used to destroy their lives, that chief executive is no longer the head of state of a democracy, but a dictator in charge of a barbarian fiefdom. Once congress and the chief executive conspire to create laws which make the revealing of these kinds of depredations a criminal offense, the free nation has passed over into the realm of the banana republic.

    The entire point of the constitution of the united states, which you so despise, Mnemosyne, is that it doesn’t matter what the motives are of the people who reveal crimes by the chief executive and the legislature against the highest law of the land, the constitution. The constitution is the law of the land. It supersedes all others. No one can defend the attempt to criminalize the revelation of evidence that people in power are systematically violating the constitution by claiming lesser crimes.

    Any lesser crimes do not matter. The great crime here is the crime of Obama and Bush before him and of the united states congress when it passed criminal and unconstitutional and unacceptable and grotesquely illegal laws like the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA and the AUMF.

  224. 224
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @YAFB: Eh, “Lid”‘s pretty close. My real name sounds like a lot of other names, so I’m not bothered by it. :P

  225. 225
    tybee says:

    @mclaren:

    Any lesser crimes do not matter.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  226. 226
    YAFB says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I don’t think I ever said anything in favor of the spirit of the pertinent UK law. It seems to me that it’s over-broad, but that, perhaps _because_ of its over-broad-ness, it also seems like the UK is technically correct to cite it in the context of this case.

    I don’t think you’ve done so either, and my entire argument all along, which I believe we’re in agreement about, is that it may be technically correct as the law is drafted (though IANAL, let alone a judge), no matter who likes it or not. It’s being scrutinized at court, so we’ll see what it finds. That may not be the end of it, but yeah, whatever, I have to award Miranda and his lawyers 1,000,000 Chuztpah Points for suing for the return of the docs.

  227. 227
    YAFB says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Thanks for being so gracious, but you’ve been a Rumproast regular, and a valued one at that. Tonight I introduced myself to the wife of a friend as if she was a welcome stranger. Granted we hadn’t seen each other for about 20 years, but even so …. And that was before I was +3.

  228. 228
    Cervantes says:

    This is how absurd things have become both here and over the pond.

    OK, John, but if the word “terrorism” was ever anything but meretricious clap-trap, that was decades, if not centuries ago. Terrorists have been accusing each other of terrorism for a long time. Why are you surprised — no, outraged — at this late date?

  229. 229
    Ripley says:

    The template:

    1. Cole: “Fuck shit fuck!”
    1.A. Long quote from another writer
    1.A.I. Intermittent bold text
    2. Cole: “Shit fuck shit!”
    3. Comments
    3.A. Cole is Wrong
    3.B. Cole is Right
    3.C. Everyone is Wrong
    3.D. Everyone is stupid
    3.D.I. Cole: “I hate you all.”
    3.D.II. Corner Stone: “Everyone is a cunt.”
    3.D.III. Mclaren: (template subverted, new template applied, rules unknowable)
    3.E. Thread fizzles
    3.E.I. Ripley posts something dense
    4. Time Passes
    5. Cole Pet Thread
    6. Comments
    6.A. Cole is cute
    6.B. Cole needs a girlfriend
    6.B. Someone holds grudge from previous thread
    6.B.I. Cole: “Fuck shit fuck!”
    6.B.II. Cole: “I hate you all.”
    6.B.III. Corner Stone: “Everyone is a still a cunt.”
    7. A Day Passes
    8. Apology Thread
    9. Days Pass
    10. Return to 1.

  230. 230
    Corner Stone says:

    @Ripley: I admire your taking the time to outline all that.
    Somehow I get the feeling I’ve never called anyone a cunt. Obviously, you disagree. So I guess both sides, eh!

  231. 231
    mclaren says:

    The fact that these issues relate to real serious genuine in-your-face erosions of basic democracy and the rule of law gets illsutrated by this video showing the way non-violent protesters get treated in America today, as of 2013.

    The mewling sophistries of Mnemosyne and cacti are merely one minor aspect of the far more worrisome slide toward an authoritarian state in which suspicion equals guilt, telling the truth in public becomes a major crime against the state, and in which the only requirement for classifying any activity as “terrorism” becomes how embarrassing that activity is to the reputations of the people in power.

  232. 232
    chopper says:

    @mclaren:

    the way non-violent protesters get treated in America today, as of 2013.

    you never went to a demo back in the day, have you?

    i swear, kids these days. then again i’ve talked to plenty of people who got their skulls cracked by the cops in the 60’s in america, or were mauled by dogs. some were shot. then the local KKK would go after them when they got home. those demonstrators made us look like fuckin’ pikers.

    protesting today is a cakewalk compared to what it used to be, sonny.

    despite the shit i dealt with in demos, i also gotta say it’s way easier in the US. my old roommate spent god-knows how long in an israeli prison because of this demonstration in the occupied territories that got a bit too much for the authorities. shit, back then you’d get maced or beaten and you’d go home and come back again the next day. nowadays you get a spray in the face and you go right to facebook and bitch about how you now have PTSD.

  233. 233
    YAFB says:

    @mclaren:

    Welcome to the 20th century.

  234. 234
    Thlayli says:

    Boy, mclaren is really insistent on informing us how much he likes pie.

  235. 235
    Stillwater says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): your stance is that the police can never stop anyone they have specific information about? Or is it only people who have a personal relationship with GG who should get a free pass?

    You left out some other choices.

  236. 236
    Corner Stone says:

    @Thlayli: What kind of pie? How many slices of pie? Is it really awesome pie? Is it chocolate or pecan? Is there any a la mode involved?
    Why the fuck would anyone give a shit about how delicate you are that you have so bravely pied mclaren?
    Just fucking pie someone and shut your stupid fucking piehole about it. Nobody gives one fuck who’s on your list.

  237. 237
    LT says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): “The British suspected Miranda would be carrying documents…”

    So do they have the right to suspect every journalist’s spouse when traveling? The spouse’s of Barton Gellman, Ewen MacAskill, etc.? And to confiscate their electronic devices?

  238. 238
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT: The full hearing is next week. After that, we are more likely to have a better idea of what information the British had regarding Miranda. Since we aren’t hearing reports of other journalists’ spouses being detained, I think it is reasonable to presume that the British had some specific information that caused them to detain Miranda.

  239. 239
    chopper says:

    @LT:

    didn’t GG tweet before this whole thing that miranda had copies of the docs? he did travel to see poitras and was on his way back, after all. i’d figure that would be considered reason to suspect that he had docs on him.

  240. 240
    Thlayli says:

    @Corner Stone:

    About the same number of fucks I give about what you think of my comments.

  241. 241
    BobbyK says:

    @mk3872: Yeah, and we’d all still be in the dark about what the NSA is doing. That’s better-yep.

  242. 242
    Thlayli says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Also too, maybe if mclaren is aware of how many people have tuned him out, he’ll remember to take his lithium and spare everyone his unhinged rants.

  243. 243
    Corner Stone says:

    @Thlayli: Your lack of fucks? Nobody fucking cares.

  244. 244
    Cacti says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Hahahaha…oh, wait. That’s your response?
    Ok, then. You’re a fucking moron.

    It’s hard to keep track of which felons are beloved by the emo progs.

  245. 245
    Corner Stone says:

    @Thlayli: I’d rather hear what someone has to say, whether I disagree, despise or etc them, than cop out and use some cowardly pie filter.
    It’s a coward’s way out, for the weak minded. The conversation continues, whether you see it or not. The blog host doesn’t shut people down so it’s up to each individual delicate little flower to try and shield themselves from statements and opinions they don’t care for.
    Your precious pie filtering doesn’t change a god damned thing for anyone but you. You get to read stories about pie.
    Let me give you the slow clap of the long embattled victor who has finally overcome their foe.

  246. 246
    Roy G. says:

    I think mclaren is spot on, what i’m tuning out is the ‘Snowald is a seekrit agent!’ bla bla bullpuckey. Not that it matters, but i’ve stopped posting in these threads because it’s depressing to see how many people posting here are willing and eager to live in a Stasi state. But then again, maybe that’s just the tipping point that the bot masters are hoping to create the impression of.

  247. 247
    Cacti says:

    @chopper:

    didn’t GG tweet before this whole thing that miranda had copies of the docs? he did travel to see poitras and was on his way back, after all. i’d figure that would be considered reason to suspect that he had docs on him.

    For being a lawyer, GG is kind of a dumbass on subjects legal, and is a complete naif on international law.

  248. 248
    Corner Stone says:

    @Cacti: Sorry to disappoint, but the courts of NZ did not agree with you and the US govt on this one.
    Next time I’m looking for saints I’ll keep you in my rolodex.

  249. 249
    Cacti says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Poor Kim Dotcom.

    He just can’t seem to keep himself out of the criminal courts of multiple countries.

    I blame Obama.

    ETA: Who among us hasn’t committed a little insider trading and then fled the country to avoid prosecution?

  250. 250
    Cassidy says:

    @Roy G.:

    it’s depressing to see how many people posting here are willing and eager to live in a Stasi state.

    And this is why people dislike Americans. Seriously? Stasi? You really think that the NSA knowing you like bestiality porn is the same as disappearing motherfuckers off the street? The fact that you could even make this comparison with a straight face shows just how comfortable of a life you’ve led.

    OH NOES! NSA COLLECTS METADATA! WE’RE IN A STASI STATE! Fuckin’ wanker.

  251. 251

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): I came across a website (GermanyWatch?) from the UK which is sure that Snowden is working for the BND. It would explain Angela’s shock.

  252. 252
    Joseph Nobles says:

    I think it’s quite possible to consider Snowden a clown for fleeing to Hong Kong and then Russia in search of a free society while also considering the British authorities clowns for arguing that David Miranda is a terrorist. If it walks like a clown and beeps its nose like a clown, it’s a clown.

  253. 253
    Corner Stone says:

    @Cacti: I’m not sure where you’re having the trouble making the distinction?
    He isn’t a saint.
    He gets hauled off because USG wants him.
    He gets to go home because NZG says, “Fuck off USG”.

    Dudebro, you keep mentioning Obama. May I suggest you visit a Dr soon for some kind of medication? Dudebros with fixations like yours end up in LAX asking people questions.

  254. 254
    Corner Stone says:

    @Bob In Portland: Case closed!

  255. 255
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Joseph Nobles: The shoes come into play as well.

  256. 256
    Cacti says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Dudebro, you keep mentioning Obama

    Broseph, Snowden and Kim Dotcom are the real liberals.

    Stand with Rand!

  257. 257
    Corner Stone says:

    @Cacti: Damn, dudebro! I didn’t know you were a Paulite!
    Fucking glibertarians like you. Never know where the dudebro ends and the brogressive begins.

  258. 258
    Cassidy says:

    I’m too buzzed to go get 2 whoppers for 5 bucks. Fucking Stasi state.

  259. 259
    Cacti says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Damn, dudebro! I didn’t know you were a Paulite!
    Fucking glibertarians like you. Never know where the dudebro ends and the brogressive begins.

    Free Mumia, Kim Dotcom, and Chelsea Manning!

  260. 260
    chopper says:

    @Cassidy:

    I’ll bet you drive a green 70’s ford falcon, fascist.

  261. 261
    different-church-lady says:

    @mclaren:

    …or by the law of the land”;

    Espionage, of course, being completely legal in the United States.

  262. 262
    Cassidy says:

    @chopper: I would drive the shit out of a 70 1/2. Unfortunately, no. I’m a minivan guy. I tote the kids more than my wife and therefore get the family car.

  263. 263
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Yeah, way to misrepresent that one. Kim Dotcom isn’t in the clear. Most of the lower court rulings against him were quashed by the High Court. The lower courts were acting as if extradition proceedings were the criminal trial proceedings. The case awaits a ruling from NZ’s Supreme Court now.

    In the mean time, the government of New Zealand has given the security services there broader powers, a few of them that seem to be results of what’s happened in this case. Mega has moved operations to Iceland while Kim Dotcom, who stepped down as its director, waits for the decision.

  264. 264

    @Cacti: “Woke up, it was a Chelsea Manning…”

  265. 265
    Corner Stone says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): How is what I said a misrepresentation?

  266. 266
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: @chopper: It’s more reasonable to assume it’s intimidation. He was stopped on an anti-terrorism law. People calling any of this reasonable – bizarre.

    @Omnes Omnibus: Then you belive it’s reasonable to detain and confiscate property of the spouse of any journalist traveling after leaving journalist known to have leaked info – which journalists do all the time?

  267. 267
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT:

    Then you belive it’s reasonable to detain and confiscate property of the spouse of any journalist traveling after leaving journalist known to have leaked info – which journalists do all the time?

    No. That is not what I said. That is not a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

  268. 268
    Mandalay says:

    @Keith G: Your posts (and your patience) on this thread have been great. Above all else, what comes through on BJ’s Snowden/GG threads is that many posters are simply unaware of some of the most basic facts about what has occurred.

    Whether that is due to wilful blindness, laziness or stupidity is beside the point. Discussing this stuff with folks who literally do not know what they are talking about is akin to discussing differential equations with people who know nothing about them yet still have very strong opinions on their merits.

  269. 269
    YAFB says:

    @LT:

    Most journalists, rather than dilettante polemicists, have better sense than to consign their spouses to visit someone known to possess leaked documents across the globe, from what I’ve read, carrying leaked documents, then return home, again carrying leaked documents, via one of the countries involved in the leaks, especially having tweeted about what was going on.

    OTOH, in August there was a lot of multidimensional chess talk doing the rounds, including on this blog, that this was a masterstroke by Greenwald to entrap the British authorities into overstepping the mark. That, of course, would make Greenwald a liar when he said in interview just recently that they were dumbfounded when Miranda was detained, but I wasn’t the one making that argument at the time.

  270. 270

    @mclaren: Echelon started in Clinton’s time, and was undoubtedly in the works at least in GHW’s Presidency. As far as spying on the American public is concerned, believe me when I tell you there was spying when I was marching against the Vietnam War in the sixties.

    http://www.namebase.org/news10.html

    As far as the US Constitution, I don’t think it applies at Heathrow.

  271. 271

    @mclaren: Echelon started in Clinton’s time, and was undoubtedly in the works at least in GHW’s Presidency. As far as spying on the American public is concerned, believe me when I tell you there was spying when I was marching against the Vietnam War in the sixties.

    http://www.namebase.org/news10.html

    As far as the US Constitution, I don’t think it applies at Heathrow.

  272. 272
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    No. That is not what I said. That is not a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

    You said:

    Since we aren’t hearing reports of other journalists’ spouses being detained, I think it is reasonable to presume that the British had some specific information that caused them to detain Miranda.

    I concede. I took “specific information” to mean simply that said spouse would be traveling **while spouse has leaked info**, as I said. You mean something else. I look forard to what you think that is, and what it actually is.

    Please tell me you think it’s because the NSA or GSHQ snooped on their calls.

  273. 273
    LT says:

    @YAFB: “Most journalists…”

    Let’s stop right there. You have no idea if what follows is true. You’re just making shit up to fit your argument.

  274. 274
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    He gets to go home because NZG says, “Fuck off USG”.

    New Zealand’s government hasn’t told the US government to fuck off. Hell, it hits New Zealanders in their wallets, too, when films get pirated. They make some huge blockbusters there, too, ya know.

  275. 275
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: And you and Msyne should admit something: If it wer Greenwald himself, or Poitras, or Gellman, or Scahill – you’d be saying a different version of the same childish whine.

  276. 276
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT: My point was that it appears that the Brits had information that indicated that Miranda had leaked info in his possession. I have no fucking whence they got the info, nor do you. I also said that next week’s hearing should provide further information. I said and meant nothing more than that.

  277. 277
    Mandalay says:

    @piratedan:

    If it was known that the Brits have these prohibitive laws in place with a broad definition of Terrorism and espionage and the transport of illegal documents… and I would have to assume that Wikileaks, Greenwald and Ms Poitras would be familiar with this… why in the fuck would you fly his ass through Heathrow for his return to Brazil?

    Indeed. Why would Miranda be so “stupid” that he chose a flight from Germany to Brazil that required setting foot in Britain?

    Well it seems highly probable that GG knew the extent and limits of British law very well, and a flight with a stopover in London was deliberately selected to provoke an incident. And GG and Miranda achieved precisely the outcome that they sought.

    Now I suppose it is possible that it truly never occurred to them that being a transit passenger at Heathrow Airport would result in Miranda being detained. Possible – but pretty unlikely.

  278. 278
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: After all that has gone down, including the bizarre incident re destroying the hard drives at the Guardian, and now the possibility that they will actually charge Snowden on terrorism charges, your saying this:

    My point was that it appears that the Brits had information that indicated that Miranda had leaked info in his possession.

    Is not just bizarre. It’s bizarrely bizarre. What appears to have happened, by anybody watching this and using their powers of reason, is that the Brits lost their shit, and stopped Miranda simply because he **might** have something related to Snowden. That’s not “having information,” that’s acting on pure speculation, and a kind of overreach any reasonble person would jump up and say WTF to.

    And you and others defending this as possibly just dandy must ignore that he was *detained on an anti-terrorism law.*** Because if you add that into your oh so *serious* assessment of the situation you end up looking like more of fools that you already do.

  279. 279
    different-church-lady says:

    “Hey, this bag of coke I’m carrying in my asshole? It’s okay because I sleep with a journalist!”

  280. 280
    LT says:

    @different-church-lady:

    “Hey, this bag of coke I’m carrying in my asshole? It’s okay because I sleep with a journalist!”

    Government secrets leaked to journalists = illegal drugs.

    Yay, Balloon Juice.

  281. 281
    Mandalay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    My point was that it appears that the Brits had information that indicated that Miranda had leaked info in his possession. I have no fucking whence they got the info

    Miranda and Greenwald played the British authorities like a cheap violin. It would be the cherry on the ice cream sundae if Greenwald anonymously provided the tip off that Miranda should be detained.

  282. 282
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT:

    And you and Msyne should admit something: If it wer Greenwald himself, or Poitras, or Gellman, or Scahill – you’d be saying a different version of the same childish whine.

    Fuck you. I have not defended what happened to Miranda on this or any other thread.

    @LT: All I said is that the hearing will provide more info. Maybe it was speculative, maybe they had specific knowledge. Maybe it came from legitimate sources, maybe it didn’t.

  283. 283
    Mandalay says:

    @LT:

    Government secrets leaked to journalists = illegal drugs.

    Yep, nobody does false equivalence better than BJ posters. They embrace it like it’s odorless pig shit that doesn’t rub off on them.

  284. 284
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Fuck you. I have not defended what happened to Miranda on this or any other thread.

    ???

    You, in this thread:

    Eventually one ends up with two sets of questions: 1. Was the detention justified under current British law? 2. Is current British law on this too broad? Of course, there is a third potential set of questions revolving around whether the detention still would have been justifiable under a narrower law.

    By asking those questions you at the very least *propose* a defense of his treatment, and much more, I think.

  285. 285
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mandalay: You comment here but are not a Balloon Juice commenter? Explain.

  286. 286
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: “All I said is that the hearing will provide more info.”

    No, that’s not all you said. You said “It appears that…” That’s a forward leaning, preemptive defense of UKG.

  287. 287
    Corner Stone says:

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Sometimes I would hope a commenter has something better than this. But since it’s you, I know you do not.
    There is nothing contradictory or “misrepresenting” what I said in any of your responses to me on this.
    Your attempt at changing the channel is simply pathetic.

  288. 288
    Cassidy says:

    Lots of people lining up to be Greenwald’s shorty. Guys, he’s taken and until he gets his current boo arrested carrying more pilfered documents, he’s not gonna turn his eye to you. No matter how many times you hold him on high as the savior of liberty or speak his name in glowing terms as the last bastion of true liberalism in this impure world, he’s just not that into you. It ain’t gonna happen.

    You might be able to get Cole or Mix, though.

  289. 289
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT: Where in that comment did I say that what happened to Miranda was correct? Back in August, I said this.

    FWIW I think the Terrorism Act of 2000 is a crappy law and that it was used to try to bully Miranda. This is why laws like this should not be on the book. If they are, someone will use them

    I haven’t changed my views.

  290. 290
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Because…You say so? You? I decided to refresh my knowledge of the case with your first mention earlier in the day because !>>YOU<<! brought it up. I trust your version of truth as much as I trust that of a fundie creationist.

  291. 291
    YAFB says:

    @LT:

    Let’s stop right there. You have no idea if what follows is true. You’re just making shit up to fit your argument.

    If we’re applying that standard, you should have stopped umpteen comments ago.

    BTW, it didn’t work out so well for the last person here who accused me of making shit up …

  292. 292
    different-church-lady says:

    @Mandalay: Equating 19/20ths of what is said on these pages to god-damned nonsense is in no way false.

  293. 293
    Death Panel Truck says:

    @Thlayli: When has Corner Stone ever had anything to say other than “You’re so fucking stupid (insert name here)?” It’s his raison d’être at Balloon Juice.

  294. 294
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Look, I’ll take your word for it. From your comments here, it seems to me you’re giving UKG way too much latitude here. And the “dingbat” thing added to that, too. People just like you and the Mnsyne said that about Ellsberg – really, they literally said that, and much, much worse. And then they said, “Oh, I neve said he wasn’t right!!!!”

    It’s weak stuff. It’s disappointing.

  295. 295
    Mandalay says:

    @LT:

    That’s not “having information,” that’s acting on pure speculation, and a kind of overreach any reasonble person would jump up and say WTF to.

    The law that allowed Miranda to be detained as a transit passenger explicitly does not require the authorities to provide any justification. It’s also worth nothing that the background for that law was absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Islamic terrorism – it was Ireland.

    I suspect that what you may view as “overreach” would be generally tolerated in the United Kingdom, where more people have died as a result the Irish troubles than died on 9/11.

    I’m not justifying anything about the behavior of the British authorities, but it’s tricky to equate attitudes about terrorism and government powers here with their British counterparts.

  296. 296
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT: You are reading too deeply into it. It was not my intent to imply a defense to the actions of the British government.

  297. 297
    LT says:

    @YAFB: You **admitted** you didn’t know what the fuck you were talking about when you said, in that exact comment, “from what I’ve read.”

    From all that stuff you’ve rea about journalists and whether or not they ever – ever – had a spouse, family member, friend, whatever – ferry docs for them.

    I have spit sharper than you.

  298. 298
    LT says:

    @Mandalay: Yeah but it’s decidedly NOT tricky given everything we’ve learned, is it? Pretty fucking simple.

  299. 299
    Cassidy says:

    Every time @LT: posts, this is what I hear. Fuckin’ make him a mix tape and move on already!

  300. 300
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Okay – I’ll take that. I appreciate that good go around.

  301. 301
    LT says:

    @Cassidy: Uh, sorry – I’m married. Flattered, though…

  302. 302
    LT says:

    Time to drink.

  303. 303
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @LT: I think the law under which Miranda was detained is absurdly broad. However, given the existence of the law, I am not shocked by what happened to Miranda. It doesn’t mean I approve.

    Let me ask this though, why would a sensible person carrying that info go though London?

  304. 304
    Cassidy says:

    @LT: It’s okay to have crushes. Greenwald doesn’t mind. I’m sure he’s flattered with your attention.

  305. 305
    YAFB says:

    @Cassidy:

    You should see him go at it on Twitter!

  306. 306
    YAFB says:

    @LT:

    And a hearty fuck you to you, old bean. I’ll stand by my track record over yours any day of the week.

    I have spit sharper than you.

    It’s speckling the screen at this point. You’re not being very persuasive, you know.

  307. 307
    dopey-o says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: “Listen to me: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time”…. from the first book of St. Kurt. So no, he isn’t a Puritan at all.

  308. 308
    YAFB says:

    @Mandalay:

    Well, there’s been a lot of handwringing, not least among those responsible for drafting the law in the first place, that it wasn’t supposed to be applied like this. It took the media kerfuffle over this case to get some of them (like Charlie Faulkner) to take notice after many years of abuses of Schedule 7 and challenges from Liberty etc.

    For reform efforts, I don’t think (as I’ve said probably too often now) that Miranda’s is a particularly sympathetic case to spur reform over here, not least while more disruptive Snowden revelations are coming out (EU leaders were supposed to meet last week to talk about our urgently disastrous economic straits, and instead ended up talking about how much they did or did not spy on each other etc., which isn’t all that helpful at the moment).

    There are other cases (like this one a week or so ago), but few individuals have the resources or want to drag through very longwinded proceedings against the state they want to visit or reside in, unless an organization like Liberty takes up their case.

    The European Court of Human Rights case may help, but it’s a long slog.

    Unfortunately, although you’re right about the legacy of the Irish conflict being responsible for the Act, we do have a persistent problem with terrorism from other quarters as well, indigenous and from people visiting or in transit. We’re all crammed together in Europe (despite the Channel giving us in the UK a quasi-moat), and as part of the EU, our borders are more permeable once somebody’s admitted to EU soil.

    In the end, though, it’s another agument against having large parliamentary majorities for any party in the UK–in Labour’s first two recent terms it had very large majorities, so it could push legislation through by heavy whipping, which stifled debate, and quite a lot of bad laws were passed. Blair was an absolute arsehole as well, and British Home Secretaries tend to share that attribute, which never helps.

    There have been adjustments at the margins. The Association of Chief Constables toned down some of the most ridiculous misuses of Shedule 7 a few years ago, for instance.

    In the end, though, the key is that definition of terrorism, and especially the justification John quoted in his post. While that stands, everything else is just tinkering. It needs to focus on the explicit threat of physical violence, I reckon. If there are other concerns about the Snowden leaks or whatever else, we have other laws that more than cover those.

  309. 309
    Mandalay says:

    @LT:

    Yeah but it’s decidedly NOT tricky given everything we’ve learned, is it? Pretty fucking simple.

    But it’s not that simple. I obviously didn’t explain my point very well. The United Kingdom has lived with terrorism for a long time. It has been routine since the 1970s for government workers to go through metal detectors at work, and have their bags searched. That society is far more accustomed to government intrusion into their lives than this society, and (when I worked there) it was mostly very supportive of that intrusion.

    I suspect that your attitude towards the way Miranda was treated – which I agree with – would mostly be met with indifference in Britain. They’re accustomed to far bigger outrages than that. (None of which is intended to condone the security apparatus in Britain which is even more frightening than here.)

  310. 310
    YAFB says:

    @Mandalay:

    What you say is largely true, in my experience of living here. We’ve long lived with balancing these intrusions against public safety.

    That doesn’t mean we like it–we’re not a homogenous population anyway–just that fewer of us are surprised, let alone outraged, when somebody in Miranda’s situation is detained when so many others have been, and still are, with far less arguable justification.

    Our crappy law is what it is. Denying that is useless. Complaining that the legislation Miranda was detained under has no relation to terrorism is pointless when the catch-all definition of terrorism is right there, explicitly, in the law, having been argued about at length in Parliament years ago. Getting that wide-ranging definition and the law as a whole changed is the point.

  311. 311
    Mandalay says:

    @YAFB:

    Getting that wide-ranging definition and the law as a whole changed is the point.

    Yes, I can’t see see any British government relinquishing the power to detain without reason, and I’m not sure that the public especially wants them to (though maybe I’m wrong on that).

    As far as I can tell their compromise approach now seems to be to keep that law but decrease the frequency with which it is used. Maybe that’s the optimal solution? As always, it’s much easier to criticize than to propose a better alternative.

  312. 312
    YAFB says:

    @Mandalay:

    I have no idea what sort of belated Halloween FYWPery is going on here, but this comment 308 linked below (which somehow landed upthread) is my reply to your comment 311 just above this one, FWIW and if you’re still interested:

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....nt-4697705

    Must be time for bed!

  313. 313
    LT says:

    @Mandalay:

    The law that allowed Miranda to be detained as a transit passenger explicitly does not require the authorities to provide any justification. It’s also worth nothing that the background for that law was absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Islamic terrorism – it was Ireland.

    I hear you, but I think again that that is ignoring an awful lot, again, given what we now know about this. And we can ract to this as Americans, can’t we? This is at base a story generated by, and very largely about, us.

  314. 314
    LT says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Let me ask this though, why would a sensible person carrying that info go though London?

    Are you honestly saying that if this had happened in France, or Toronto, or New York, the response of the “Oh Snowden-Greenwald is such a meanie liberated!!” would be much different?

    And why are you even beginning to question **the Brazilian dude (or you, or me, or your aunt) traveling wherever the fuck he wants to travel** – and not the UKG in all of this?

  315. 315
    IM says:

    @jon:

    What the hell are you babbling about?

  316. 316
    IM says:

    @Hawes:

    Hmmm, how many journalists have been killed in Russia?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..onflict.29

    200?

    Beacon of freedom, that place.

    I always disliked the “it’s worse in Saudi-Arabia” argument.

  317. 317
    IM says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    The BND can’t even tie it’s shoelaces.

  318. 318
    tybee says:

    ~63% of a TBogg unit. not too bad for a sat’dy nite.

  319. 319
    Thlayli says:

    @LT:

    And why are you even beginning to question **the Brazilian dude (or you, or me, or your aunt) traveling wherever the fuck he wants to travel** – and not the UKG in all of this?

    No country has an obligation to let in any foreigner, ever*. They allow it because it’s beneficial for everyone — subject to their laws.

    Why are you even beginning to question the UK government’s duty to enforce the laws that their democratically-elected legislature enacted?

    * — For instance, Saudi Arabia does not issue tourist visas. You can go there to work, or to do the hajj, period.

  320. 320
    chopper says:

    I could have sworn that GG tweeted before this incident about how Miranda had copies of some of the docs. That and the fact that he was coming back from visiting poitras (which I think was also known) would give the uk authorities a pretty reasonable suspicion that Miranda was carrying docs, regardless of which statute they wanted to apply.

    this situation isn’t just like any other journalist’s husband or wife getting searched, unless you ignore all the relevant details.

  321. 321
    Corner Stone says:

    @Death Panel Truck:

    It’s his raison d’être at Balloon Juice.

    Is that French for oatmeal with raisins? Because I love a good hot oatmeal! Except I prefer the delicious Golden raisin over the regular shriveled up purplish thingies.
    Now you’ve made me hungry, you cheese eatin’ surrender monkey!

  322. 322
    Corner Stone says:

    @YAFB:

    BTW, it didn’t work out so well for the last person here who accused me of making shit up …

    **whispering**
    why?…what..happened..to them?

  323. 323
    YAFB says:

    @LT:

    Let me ask this though, why would a sensible person carrying that info go though London?

    Are you honestly saying that if this had happened in France, or Toronto, or New York, the response of the “Oh Snowden-Greenwald is such a meanie liberated!!” would be much different?

    Are you terminally dense, or is obfuscation via mangled syntax a hobby for you, o spitty troll?

    Omnes can correct me if I’m wrong and if he can be bothered, but I believe he’s reiterating what a number of us have said (in his case, patiently using Socratic questioning rather than statements you can just petulantly dismiss without grounds as usual, because that’s what you constantly do) — some upthread have even seen it as a masterstroke by Greenwald:

    Traveling through London, the capital of the UK, while carrying sensitive documents relating to the UK’s surveillance was a very risky step. The laws exist –and though you can’t seem to grasp this, they’re not American laws. People are detained regularly under Schedule 7. There doesn’t need to any proof of grounds for suspicion to do so at the time of detention. The law allows fishing expeditions, then the rights and wrongs can be argued in court after the fact, which is what’s happening in this case. Any journalist worth their salt would know that.

    @tybee:

    Still working on it, but I suspect this one’s winding down …

  324. 324
    chopper says:

    @YAFB:

    well, if it was GG’s point to show that uk laws are overly broad, he went around it the wrong way.

  325. 325
    different-church-lady says:

    @YAFB:

    Still working on it, but I suspect this one’s winding down …

    1 BJu = approx. .63 TBu.

    (Souce: Smoot Institute)

  326. 326
    YAFB says:

    @chopper:

    IMO, yup. Not that I buy into the idea that it was a strategy on his part without any proof of that.

    I can’t find the interview where he said it right now (I may have read it on hard copy, not online), but he’s claimed (whether one believes it or not) that Miranda’s detention was a complete surprise because other Guardian journalists as well as Poitras had recently been allowed to travel via Heathrow unchallenged.

  327. 327
    YAFB says:

    @Corner Stone:

    It’s spilt milk now, and not something I want to dwell on since civility has since been resumed, which I’m glad about, but the answer’s in the BJ thread I linked earlier.

  328. 328
    Rex Everything says:

    @I am not a kook:

    This doesn’t make any sense.

    Seriously. Snowden wants to sell the files to the Russians/Chinese—so, to that end, he GIVES them to some journalists & newspapers?

  329. 329
    LAC says:

    @Corner Stone: says the bully who devolves into a shrieking drunk mess of profanities when he/she realizes that people don’t care what he/she thinks. Do you have a life outside of being a blog bouncer that people have to endure here?

  330. 330
    chopper says:

    @LAC:

    CoSto is just the blog’s drunken mean girl.

  331. 331
    nabsentia23 says:

    @John Cole:

    Yes, there does need to be serious discussion about the national security state, but Snowden and GG are the wrong guys to lead it.

    Sorry, dude. I’m still not buying this BS.

  332. 332
    cleek says:

    you’re re-running three month old Snowden stories now ?

  333. 333
    jon says:

    @IM: I was just saying that my analogy to a drug dealer is related to the fact that Edward Snowden gave Glenn Greenwald the stolen information and that David Miranda was used by Greenwald to transport the stolen information through an airport. So the comparison to a drug dealer is that the valuable stuff was given by one person to another person and that person had it held by a third person. It’s an analogy, a comparison, a metaphorical device used to make a point. Like saying I was babbling although I used actual words. You know, using language creatively.

    I think the terrorism label is ridiculous, too. But to carry illegal things through border checkpoints and expect not to be stopped and checked out when a person is a known associate of someone who acquires illegal things? That’s ridiculous, too. And it’s even more ridiculous to expect to win a gadfly lawsuit crying about how your nonexistent civil liberties were violated when THEY FOUND THE STUFF ON YOU. I used to work in a prison, so I know stupid whining from convicted drug couriers and dealers. I see Greenwald’s spouse as a willing partner if he was transporting stuff.

    Of all the outrages of the war on terror, this rates about a one. Sure, it’s a English-speaking white guy’s husband so it gets more attention. But I’d put GITMO, rendition, torture, drones, and all the rest on the Serious list. This goes under the Sorry to Fucking Inconvenience a Non-Arab in Some Way heading.

  334. 334
    polyorchnid octopunch says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Yeah, there’s no such thing as The West. Just like there’s no such thing as society.

  335. 335
    chopper says:

    Will no one think of our unfettered right to mule stolen state secrets through heathrow?

  336. 336
    polyorchnid octopunch says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yeah, because there’s no such thing as abuse of process.

  337. 337
    different-church-lady says:

    @jon:

    Sure, it’s a English-speaking white guy’s professional internet troll’s husband so it gets more attention.

    Couldn’t let that one stand uncorrected.

  338. 338
    different-church-lady says:

    @Rex Everything: Yeah, you’re right on that, and that might be the difference between people who think Snowden’s a goof based on his own actions and the others who are circling the wagons.

    I don’t think he had a damn clue what he was going to do once he had them, other than turn them over to his new internet friend. Even the choice of Hong Kong strikes me as a last-minute improv — it makes a lot more sense when you consider that he was in Hawaii and HK was a place he could get to with minimal transfers. From there is was amateur improv theater played on an international stage.

    And I know one damn thing for sure: if I were going to be selling secrets to anyone, I sure as hell wouldn’t be giving press interviews. Snowy may be a zealot but I don’t think he’s that dumb.

  339. 339
    priscianus jr says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Is the assumption that the British gov’t is taking orders from Obama?

    My assumption is that both Obama and Snowden are taking orders from the NSA.

    Or let’s say, “friendly requests”.

Comments are closed.