Greenwald's partner's detention is not convenient, hype or self-promotion.

[nashville_brook]

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Greenwald's partner's detention is not convenient, hype or self-promotion.
And no one needs to wait a 'couple of days' or even minutes to figure that out.

David Miranda's detention is an act of intimidation that will likely become a rallying point. The fact that some suggest it's a publicity stunt only proves how ludicrous the pro-NSA arguments have become. You see, it's just too "convenient." It's a set-up. You'll see..it's a devilish ploy.

There's a pattern here. When the NSA dragnet story broke is was derided by some as a "fake scandal." It was imagined to be a broadside aimed at the president, regardless of the fact that no rational commenter suggested that. It was imagined to be an attack on POTUS regardless of the fact that republican leaders took time out from bashing POTUS and the ACA to vigorously defend the NSA and their defense industry patrons.

When the story became larger to include layers of programs, contractors and countries, some said that it was all made up...it was all self-promotion...all to "sell" clicks for a media organization...and that it would "all blow over" when Greenwald and Snowden are proven to be liars, libertarians or leprechauns.

So when a member of Greenwald's family is detained under suspicion of "terror," this pretty much refutes the idea that this journo is not to be taken seriously -- because someone, somewhere is taking him very seriously.

What we're seeing emerge here is the criminalizing of investigative journalism. Miranda was held under Schedule 7 which is intended to ferret out suspected "terrorists." Here we see it used instead to intimidate someone suspected of making the intelligence establishment look bad.

This is a very big deal. It's bigger than partisan politics. It's bigger than the POTUS. It's time to get serious and stop with the comforting bedtime stories of hype and publicity stunts.

It's time to put away these childish things.


__________________________________

As an FYI here's some background on Schedule 7 which is the law that UK police detained Miranda under. From the ACLU press release:

Background:

Schedule 7 is the law that allows the police to detain anyone at the UK borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present. No lawyer is provided automatically.

It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions -- regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police.

According to the advice published by the Association of Chief Police Officers’, Schedule 7 should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.

A similarly over-broad and vague section of the Act which allowed stop and frisk without any grounds was held to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Section 44 - as it was known - violated Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights which protects privacy.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-detention-guardian-employee-heathrow-unlawful-and-unwarranted-2013-08-18#.UhE1-z12nWc.twitter

[DirkGently]

1. Yep. The "Leprechauns" argument is probably already

up in GD somewhere.

Seriously, if this is all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like the U.S. surveillance apparatus is out of control, it deserves to work.

[nashville_brook]

4. it's that damn good. like three-dimensional chess...

with leprechauns!

[one_voice]

19. The 'Leprechauns'?...

Seriously, what the hell have I missed?

What are the leprechauns?

This is the first time I've seen this. Is it a nickname for the CIA or MIC?

[KittyWampus]

130. LOL! This didn't happen in the USA.

[reusrename]

137. LOL! So what?

[DirkGently]

147. LOL! Your post makes no sense!

Leprechauns.

[nashville_brook]

164. Lerprechauns.

[DirkGently]

165. "Ratf@cking" Leprechauns!

[nashville_brook]

170. Lerp.

[DirkGently]

178. Lerping, R@tfucking Leprechauns!

[nashville_brook]

180. The Lerp will abide.

[frylock]

188. and neither did the Morales incident

[nashville_brook]

195. weird how the UK 'advised' US officials on this

and yet, it's not on us.

lots of head-spinning illogic on this.

[woo me with science]

2. "What we're seeing emerge here is the criminalizing of investigative journalism."

K&R

[DirkGently]

6. Investigation = disloyalty = turrahizm!

[sabrina 1]

113. And now, being a family member of a Journalist makes you a Terrorist.

Anyone who doesn't find this to be frightening, is either part of these crimes against the people or willfully blind.

From now on, I will view anyone who tries to excuse these abuses as someone who needs to get out of the way so that the rest of the people can begin the process of ending this takeover of our Democratic processes.

[nashville_brook]

121. +1

[snappyturtle]

132. +1 nt

[Caretha]

68. And that's when it starts to get really scary

but what the hell do I know?

[nashville_brook]

109. coming soon, the criminalization of critique

[DirkGently]

193. Dissent = disloyalty. Patriots vs. Traitors. Personality

over principle. Again and again.

We've already seen the "helping the enemy" chestnut trotted out over this.

It doesn't matter, it's suggested, what someone does, just who they are when they're doing it. Somehow it's always fine if "we" are in control.

Begging the question, who the fuck are "we?"

How does anyone even self-identify if the whole point of struggle and argument and democracy is just to give your own associates the opportunity to be the assholes?

[WillyT]

3. If They Step Like A Goose...

& Rec !!!

[RKP5637]

35. Yep, that sums it up well! n/t

[quinnox]

5. The British are very subservient lackeys to the USA

enough said. They will do anything the USA tells them to do. I'm afraid that Greenwald and his partner should expect stuff like this, when you are making very powerful spooks and spies pissed off, and the power establishment angry, there is going to be blow-back. I would advise Greenwald to avoid small planes and let everyone know he is feeling very positive on life, and not feeling down or depressed or suicidal. Call me crazy, but I say that only half-jokingly.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. You think Obama ordered it?

[nashville_brook]

8. we understand that's the frame you prefer to operate in

but, that's not what the poster said, nor does it follow inferentially from the post.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. I was asking a simple question

and it wasn't addressed to you.

[DirkGently]

21. Welcome to the General Discussion forum?

[nashville_brook]

22. welcome to the internets!

your need to frame this as an attack on Obama reveals a measure of bias. do you honestly think that pro-NSA = pro-Obama?

and conversely, do you honestly think that NSA abuses are good for the president?

[Cali_Democrat]

24. I prefer to call it the interwebz

Thanks.

[nashville_brook]

31. so...you want to address your framing?

[Cali_Democrat]

37. The interwebz are fun, aren't they?

A simple 5 word question can lead so many folks to chomp the bait.

[nashville_brook]

42. so your answer is "keep talking about Obama"

thought so.

[Cali_Democrat]

46. Where did I say "keep talking about Obama"?

Maybe I missed it.

[nashville_brook]

50. tell me what you think how that framing helps Obama.

[Cali_Democrat]

54. I asked a simple 5 word question

If that angered you, well then too bad. You'll just have to deal.

How you interpret my simple question is entirely up to you.

[Maedhros]

168. Stop dissembling.

You received an answer to your question. Now you just look silly.

[pnwmom]

55. The writer of post #5 said the US made Britain do it.

Who else could the writer have been referring to other than Obama?

[Ed Suspicious]

58. Lower level people who might be in a position to make such a call. Isn't that obvious? I'm

relatively confident the president has bigger things to do than to track the movements of Greenwald's family members.

[pnwmom]

60. Are you aware that Britain has its own long history of misusing terrorism laws

and its own vulnerability with regard to the documents Greenwald's threatening to reveal? They don't need some underling from the Obama administration to tell them what to do.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. I guess that was my point. I was sure the "order" didn't come from the president. I thought that

premise was ridiculous.

[nashville_brook]

174. one would hope he did...

today's news might suggest otherwise. and that really isn't a good thing for pro-privacy or pro-NSA folks. nor is it good for the country. it's an index of ungood.

[LondonReign2]

158. Alexander

I doubt the good General would even bother to notify Obama before acting...or even afterwards.

[tsuki]

112. I like innertubes myself. nt

[quinnox]

9. I don't know, but

I doubt this is just a mistake or a coincidence, or that the UK did this on their own. Maybe it is the NSA top level spooks who are ordering this as "pay-back". Maybe Obama doesn't know a thing, and rogue elements are responsible. I don't know, I can only speculate.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. True

All we have is speculation.

I think we need more information.

[DirkGently]

10. He said "the U.S." Obsessed with Obama much?

And if you think this was the U.K. acting independently, I've got a lovely bridge to sell you.

Barely used.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Well Obama is head of the executive branch

Which is responsible for relations with foreign governments.

So if there was an order, it might come from the State Dept, which falls under Obama.

[DirkGently]

27. So you're already blaming Obama?

Why go after him, when we're just learning the facts?

[Cali_Democrat]

30. I am?

[DirkGently]

36. Don't see anyone else here bringing him into it.

Do you?

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Well he's the Prez

If the US ordered the UK to do this, then there's a possibility it came from high up.....perhaps to the Prez.

[DirkGently]

45. Interesting theory you've got blaming Obama. Sort of misses the thrust

of the OP, which is the apparent impropriety of detaining someone for being associates with a journalist.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. Well if there was an order

It's certainly possible.

Again...assuming there was an order.

[bvar22]

67. So YOU are claiming that President Obama ordered the detention of Greenwald's partner.

YOU, and nobody else.
Cause NOBODY else has said anything like that.
Everybody else, except YOU, are only citing the FACTS as we know them.

[Cali_Democrat]

80. Reading is fundamental

Well if there was an order

[bvar22]

87. Reading IS fundamental.

So is logic.

Who injected this bogus and pathetic Staw Man into the thread?
My reading is fundamental enough to know THAT,
and so is everybody else's who happens to read this thread.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Cali_Democrat]

89. I never said Obama ordered the detention

You're confused.

[bvar22]

96. Another FALSE ststement.

I'm not "confused" at all.
YOU are the one who brought the POTUS into this thread.
No one else.

[Cali_Democrat]

97. You said:

YOU are claiming that President Obama ordered the detention of Greenwald's partner

Again, I never said any such thing.

You are confused.

[nashville_brook]

94. why is that your assumption? if there was "an order" why would it

come from POTUS? don't we have intelligence executives who would be in charge of that?

which also begs the question, why would it necessarily be an executive decision? it could just as easily be "bad apples" or over-zealous security agents.

[Cali_Democrat]

98. If there was an order

it's certainly possible it could come from various folks within the govt, including Prez.

But...that's assuming there was an order.

We don't know that.

[nashville_brook]

92. why would you assume that POTUS is involved in intel administration?

[Cali_Democrat]

99. Well...

an "order" like this would come from the State Dept.

[nashville_brook]

100. what do you mean by "an order like this"?

[bvar22]

101. Working harder than a cat trying to cover a turd,

that one is.

[Cali_Democrat]

103. "So YOU are claiming that President Obama ordered the detention of Greenwald's partner"

Nope. Never said any such thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

102. In transit zone in the airport

A foreign country wants someone detained....someone in the State Dept would make the call to the UK's foreign ministry and then they let the airport officials at Heathrow know that somebody needs to be detained.

[nashville_brook]

110. for a Brazilian citizen?

[Cali_Democrat]

114. They're in Heathrow airport

Brazil has no jurisdiction.

[pnwmom]

57. No thanks. If you don't realize that Britain has its own long history of abusing terrorism laws --

with no help needed from the US -- then you probably own a lot of worthless bridges.

Britain, which has its own vast system of surveillance, has every reason not to want the thousands of stolen documents to see the light of day. They don't want their own citizens to start asking the questions people are asking here.

[Th1onein]

124. Oh, it's all just "speculation," dontcha know?

That's all. And the evidence that there was spying in the first place? Oh, that wasn't evidence at all. They just made all that shit up, on the fly. That's why Snowden had to flee the US--because he didn't have anything. Oh, except he's a spy who gave info to the Chinese.

[LondonReign2]

160. Everyone already knew all about this a long time ago

so it's no big, which is why they have to arrest Snowden, but its all legal and Greenwald is just a poopyhead so pay no attention to his stories because Snowden is a traitor for stealing information that is no big deal anyway which is why we had to ground a sovereign head of state's plane to search for him but really we didn't they actually had a fuel gauge problem and anyway he had boxes in his garage.

[Th1onein]

163. lol

[nashville_brook]

182. pole dancer.

[HooptieWagon]

16. If so, the Personality Cult will defend it.

There is no crime, no abuse of power, that they won't defend.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. I think we need more information. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

26. All it takes is removing your head from the sand.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. My head is in the sand?

Shit.

I had no idea. Thanks for the information.

[HooptieWagon]

47. Then what information do you need?

Its quite preposterous to assume Greenwald's partner is a terrorist. Therefore, he was detained as political retribution. Greenwald is a political embarrassment to Obama's spy machine...no one else. Its quite evident the US was behind this, just as they were in forcing down the Bolivian President's plane. There are no other countries/persons with means and motivation.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. I think we need more information

It's not good to jump to conclusions before all the facts have emerged IMO.

If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. I'm drinking some good scotch right now so I ain't in a rush.

[Marr]

61. ie, you need talking points. /nt

[Cali_Democrat]

62. To be delivered to my inbox tomorrow morning

Damn.

You got me.

[Maedhros]

171. Well, the talking points you're using now are worn out and don't work anymore.

Looks like you could use some new ones. Or some history lessons in what the Democratic Party used to stand for, which is 180 degrees opposite from your position.

[Cali_Democrat]

175. Don't worry

More talking points to be delivered in a few more hours.

I'll keep you posted.

[Caretha]

79. Did he need to?

You ask very rhetorical questions that simply....have nothing to do with reality. Assessing blame can only be made by history. Most people who are trying to defend the indefensible are confused, befuddled and without a compass.

In Texas we say "bless your heart".

Nuff said.

[Cali_Democrat]

81. Thankfully

I don't live in Texas.

[Caretha]

85. And that has to do with what?

Thankfully I don't live in Afghanistan, thankfully I don't live in Syria, and last but not least....thankfully I don't live in Egypt, although I have visited 2 out of the 3 countries.

Now, your point was? Just as I thought. Try thinking as an adult, and quit acting your age.

[Cali_Democrat]

88. You seem angry

Maybe if you hadn't insulted me initially, you wouldn't be feeling this way.

See how that works?

Now...enjoy your Texas.

Thankfully, I don't live there.

[Caretha]

93. I have no desire

to make you feel uncomfortable in your own skin. That is all up to you. Insult you? Sorry you feel insulted that way, but I must say if you paint everything with the same brush, you are likely to feel insulted all your life.

Nam esta

[Cali_Democrat]

95. Actually I'm a pretty easy-going person

It takes a lot to piss me off. You haven't done it.

You used the words...confused, befuddled and without a compass....

in reference to me.

I do consider that an attempted insult.

Enjoy Texas, my dear.

I actually feel sorry for a lot of folks who live there.

[Caretha]

104. Believe it or not

I'm not trying to "piss you off"

Really that is not my way. If I want to "piss" you off, I would do it very blatantly and you would know it.

I actually feel sorry for a lot of folks who live there

And so do I. I no longer live there, after having lived there since I was a mere 15. I understand a lot that has gone on and is happening in Texas after all those long years there. I'm now 61, and am in a place that may be sustainable for the rest of my years, however long the may be.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. When you use the words

- befuddled
- confused
- without a compass


Surely you can see how someone might consider it an insult?

[Caretha]

115. Yes I do Cali_Democrat

and I am trying to use those words as gently as I can.

I've read many posts by you, and see that you are someone who cares greatly. I really don't know how to tell you that you are slightly off course and that you can use your energy in a much more constructive way. You have a great deal of intelligence, but maybe you have a deficit in history and political science that may be inhibiting your potential.

This may sound patronizing...please don't take it that way, for I sincerely like listening to your take on different political subjects.

[Aerows]

141. No, and I think it's likely that the UK did it on their own

Snowden had documents that were highly embarrassing for the UK, too, and showed their involvement in the whole spying apparatus.

[morningfog]

151. You think the US had no role in it?

[pnwmom]

51. The British have their own long history of misusing terrorism laws

and they have their own strong interest in making sure that the thousands of documents Greenwald's been threatening to reveal don't see the light of day.

So there's no need to decide that Britain is acting as a lackey.

But once again, a DUer can't wait to blame Obama for EVERYTHING.

[quinnox]

63. I acknowledge that it is speculation

You are right, it is possible that the British could have their own reasons for doing this, that are political in nature. I don't rule that out, but I tend to think the USA spy masters may be involved, but that is my opinion.

I did not "blame Obama", you devotees always jump to that wrong conclusion. I suggested it is high level NSA spies who may be behind this, and they could be rogue elements.

[pnwmom]

66. I don't appreciate being called an Obama devotee any more than

you appreciate being called an Obama hater.

Why is DU so full of personal insults these days?

[quinnox]

70. oh come on, lighten up a bit

"Devotee" is about as mild as it gets. Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster : an ardent follower, supporter, or enthusiast

I think we both know much harsher terms get thrown around with a lot of frequency.

[pnwmom]

75. It's an insult. The flip side of Obama hater. Would you like being called a hater? n/t

[quinnox]

82. "the flip side"?? Seriously?

Believe me, I can come up with a lot more inflammatory terms than "devotee", and these are often seen elsewhere to refer to shall we say, the extremely ardent and devoted supporters of Obama. I'm surprised this sets you off so much, when in my opinion much worse terms are used.

But Oh hell, I won't call you a "devotee" though anymore. You win.

[pnwmom]

116. I'm sure there are worse things to call someone

than a word that implies an irrational, unquestioning devotion to the President, but that doesn't make it okay.

So thank you. I hope you will reconsider before you use it again when you disagree with someone about Snowden/Greenwald/Assange.

[davidpdx]

128. Seriously it is annoying and offensive even to people who you aren't saying it to

That and all the other crappy meme's being used. Go ahead and laugh off people's concerns, but some of us are sick of it.

[pnwmom]

131. Thank you for speaking up, too. nt

[davidpdx]

127. Well half way through the thread we have the use of

"devotees" and "talking points" when is the "paid shill" meme going to be used.

[Aerows]

142. Some of the revelations

were unpleasant for the UK, too, so it's just as likely they did it on their own, IMHO.

[bvar22]

72. Grasping at straws at this point.

The revelations are consistent with what we have learned about the US behavior over the last few weeks.

Which way would you BET your money?

[pnwmom]

146. The UK has almost as much reason to be concerned about what's revealed about them

in those documents as we do. And this thing was handled very clumsily.

So I would bet that the UK thought this up on their own. It would be in keeping with their long abuse of terrorism laws, dating back from decades (related to the IRA).

[nashville_brook]

172. why should the UK be concerned...if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear

[pnwmom]

173. No country wants their spying activities splashed all over the media.

It is as much nonsense to say, "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear" as it is for the police to tell anyone charged with a crime "if you have nothing to hide, go ahead and tell us everything."

[Aerows]

145. Not to mention some of the information

so far release embarrassed the UK, too. It seems pretty likely to me they did it on their own.

[pscot]

12. K&R

[gulliver]

14. If the guy's computer stuff has one Snowden document on it...

...Glenn will have really screwed up the guy's life. Who knows why they detained the guy, though? Intimidation would be an intolerable reason of course, and the guy's partner is Glenn Greenwald, so intimidation would also be dumb. I'll wait and see.

[nashville_brook]

38. that's quite a leap to assume he'd have Snowden docs,

what makes you think that?

[gulliver]

52. It's quite a leap for you to think I am assuming that.

What makes you think that?

[HooptieWagon]

56. The Personality Cult is grasping at straws.

Their defense of the stazi-state is becoming ever-more ludicrous.

[nashville_brook]

122. the hole is dug...

cracks me up that the digging continues

[ljm2002]

65. "and the guy's partner is Glenn Greenwald"...

..."so intimidation would also be dumb."

True that. As Mark Twain put it, "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."

All they've really done with this caper is to provide him with more ammunition.

Way to go, guys.

[cui bono]

15. "What we're seeing emerge here is the criminalizing of investigative journalism."

Yes, and couple this with Feinstein's move to legislate who is an accredited journalist and we can see what TPTB are trying to do with our First Amendment.

Scary times indeed. Those who do not see it better open their eyes. Soon.

[snappyturtle]

133. Great fit with Feinstein's proposal....

Indeed, very scary times. I was thinking about all that has
'come down' since 9/11. The country and our lives have
changed a lot and I am afraid the change hasn't been for
the better. imho

[ucrdem]

17. So why was he strolling around Heathrow with all that bait in his rucksack

or wherever it was? Did Glenn and Laura just forget to tell him about post-911 airport security?

[nashville_brook]

25. please roll out you theory in the best possible light

consider this an opportunity to get it all out.

[ucrdem]

41. I think your OP title covers the bases. nt

[nashville_brook]

111. strolling around with post-9/11 BAIT? come on! you can't leave us hanging!

out with it!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

29. Bait? Go on.....

Sounds like victim blaming, but indulge me.

[DirkGently]

39. Was he dressed too sexy, too?

[nashville_brook]

123. clearly he was 'asking for it'

[DirkGently]

159. I LOVE this attempted meme. It fails so

completely, and is so nakedly dishonest.

I know. We should wish for more open and honest discussion.

But when someone approaches a grotesque abuse of police power with "The victim was 'strolling around with bait,' " it does really illustrate just how far people are willing to contort logic to pursue the conclusion they want.

To review, the first clear NSA Defense theme on Miranda's detention is under the Terrorist Act is ...

"He made them detain him by purposely appearing to have information the government wants to suppress."

The bastard!

[bvar22]

83. Please enlighten us.

No need to be so cryptic.

Tell us what you really want to say.

[totodeinhere]

108. He was not "strolling" around Heathrow. He was in transit between Germany and Brazil.

And regarding airport security, I travel with similar items all the time and don't have a problem. Almost any business traveler will have a laptop. He was detained not because he possessed a laptop and video games. He was detained as a matter of intimidation.

[struggle4progress]

23. ... Mr Miranda ... had spent the previous week in Berlin visiting Laura Poitras ... who has .. been

helping to disseminate Mr Snowden's leaks. The trip had been paid for by The Guardian, Mr Greenwald said ...
Snowden journalist's partner detained under terror law
August 19, 2013 - 10:22AM
Charlie Savage
http://www.smh.com.au/world/snowden-journalists-partner-detained-under-terror-law-20130819-2s5vz.html

[nashville_brook]

28. and...that's terrorism?

[cthulu2016]

34. In the eyes of the poster... sure.

Don't expect much in the way of sequential logic from someone looking for a reason to *not* think about something

[struggle4progress]

43. I don't know why he was detained. It might indeed have something to do with the Snowden/NSA story,

but if it does there may be more involved than a mere attempt to intimidate Miranda simply because he's Greenwald's partner

[nashville_brook]

44. but do you think If he had Snowden docs, that's terrorism?

bc that's what Schedule 7 is for.

[Egnever]

53. Thats what GG and friends would like for you to believe

But Schedule 7 has no requirement for suspicion of terrorism for detainment. They can detain you for no reason at all. Or even god forbid for suspicion of transporting stolen classified documents.


The law blows IMHO. But there is no requirement of suspicion of terrorism.

So yes if he had snowden docs detaining him under this law is completely justified.


"Unlike most other police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism"

http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1

[struggle4progress]

74. Do you have a copy of Schedule 7? It's possible, for example, that both (1) the public justification

for Schedule 7 was the need for counter-terrorism powers and (2) the law, as actually written and implemented, has much broader scope than counter-terrorism activity

[Denzil_DC]

90. This came up on another thread.

I've no idea what their justification was, nor indeed whether they felt they had one, but the law's broadly drafted. Here's how it defines terrorism:

Section 1. –

(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 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 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.

I guess they could argue that the subsections above that I bolded might apply. I've no idea of the rationale for releasing Miranda while hanging on to his electronics, which they presumably did on the pretext of looking for evidence.

[sweetloukillbot]

107. The article actually says he's delivering documents related to the Greenwald's investigations

Are they part of the classified Snowden docs? Don't know. But Miranda isn't an innocent family member being harrassed if he is being paid by the Guardian to physically transport the documents from Brazil to Germany.

[nashville_brook]

125. a dastardly case of aiding and abetting...

journalism.

[DirkGently]

153. Journalism IS practically mass murder, after all.

[snappyturtle]

134. The Guardian may have paid for Mirand's trip to protect him....

as involved with journalistic endeavors.

[sweetloukillbot]

135. Regardless, he's not a poor innocent bystander if he's playing courier for the newspaper

Which would also explain why the newspaper dispatched lawyers to the case immediately - they're involved in this.

[snappyturtle]

136. I am not aware of Miranda being tagged as a "poor

innocent bystander". Of course the Guardian produced legal aid...
they paid for the trip so whatever Miranda was doing it was
important enough to pay the fare.

[DirkGently]

152. Because participating in journalism is practically terrorism.

[nashville_brook]

154. it's an emerging meme...will be common sense in no time.

[DirkGently]

161. Rightwingers are already there. Always have been.

[nashville_brook]

176. indeed.

[DirkGently]

32. Aiding and abetting journalism?

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. is there ANYTHING the pro-authoritarians will not defend?

[grasswire]

71. Yes. The Constitution of the United States of America.

Apparently.

[msanthrope]

77. How does the Constitution apply in Heathrow? nt

[Skittles]

129. the question was in general

not limited to the OP

[Ed Suspicious]

78. Oh snap. DUzy.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

117. Back in the Bush years -

I used to say here that Bush could fuck a Boy Scout on live TV and there would be some RW asshat who would defend it.

We might be entering that territory.

[nashville_brook]

144. +1

[99th_Monkey]

69. Schedule 7 was in process of being revised

according to this:

"The government has been attacked for the changes it has made to Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act which allows an examining officer to stop, search, question and detain a person travelling through a port, airport or border area.

The consultation on Schedule 7 ran from 13 September to 6 December 2012. The Home Office said that the changes being made would "reduce potential for the powers to be operated in a way that may interfere with individuals' rights unnecessarily or disproportionately – while still retaining the operational effectiveness of the provisions to counter-terrorism and protect the public".

Among the changes are cutting the maximum period of examination from nine to six hours, detainees being allowed legal support in line with people held at police stations, and more training of officers to make sure they use Schedule 7 effectively."

However, CagePrisoners – a group set up to "empower communities impacted by the War on Terror" – said the changes did not go far enough. In particular, they did little to tackle some of Schedule 7's "more extreme measures", such as its curtailment of a person's right to remain silent, the lack of need for reasonable suspicion, and taking DNA samples without any evidence to warrant the action.

The group said: "While some within government may be patting themselves on the back for handing us yet more freedoms, these changes still infringe ancient, hard-fought civil liberties and will continue to affect members of minority ethnic groups disproportionately."

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=23457

[nashville_brook]

119. interesting.

[reusrename]

138. I'm finding conflicting info on schedule 7.

Some say you have to answer questions and others say you have a right to remain silent and consult a lawyer.

Weird that there would be so many conflicting sides to this.

Also, some stuff says that you're considered to be in custody while you're detained, but other stuff says you're not under arrest.

This sounds a lot like a police state to me. Laws that can be interpreted any way that's convenient. It's looks a whole lot like apartheid, as a matter of fact. It's almost as if there are two sets of rules here.

It's pretty weird and pretty scary that they could use it this way with impunity.

[99th_Monkey]

155. That's why I posted that info about the proposed changes to Schedule 7

I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that there are two "standards",
one that's been in place for years, and another one that is "in the works" to
replace the old standards & guidelines.

[reusrename]

162. The weasel-wording in the act itself is a problem for me.

Suspects do get their rights, but for the first 9 hours you aren't yet considered a suspect at all, you are merely a detainee.

You're in some sort of limbo where you are in custody but not under arrest, and the determination of whether or not you are suspected of anything has yet to be made. AFAICT, detainees have no rights at all, at least none that they can legally assert without breaking the law.

Of course, if you are determined to be a suspect, and if you are then arrested, you can still be prevented from having a lawyer or any other communication if they feel you may try to warn an accomplice.

[99th_Monkey]

167. You're exactly right imo

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 07:35 PM - Edit history (1)

especially that word "detainee" is so-o-o insidious,
seriously ... as a "detainee" you are for all practical purposes
under arrest, but they invented an entirely new word for it which
means "you are under arrest, but we're not calling it that, i.e. we
can't do that legally."

Without "detainees" there could be no Gitmo in the first place.

It's complete BS. and these words have crept into collective
consciousness and usage such that no one even notices any
more, much less questions it.

[bvar22]

187. He's not a prisoner. He's a "Detainee",

...so its ALL perfectly legal.
We have a note from our lawyer.


IGNORANCE is STRENGTH!
All HAIL the Invisible Hand!

[nashville_brook]

184. it's all very foggy. one thing for sure tho, they were willing to stretch the limits

of Schedule 7 to detain him, and benefited from the vagueness of the rule. no one was gonna say, "hey, you can't do that." they might be able to get reform on it now, after the fact, though.

that could be a bright side. maybe.

[reusrename]

186. There's a tiny problem here.

I honestly like the idea of there being a bright side, but "they" (the ones with all the power) don't want to change anything and "we" (the ones who are trying to change things) don't have any power to do much of anything.

This is what's so dangerous about the surveillance state. Its real purpose is to prevent us from organizing because that's where our power comes from. Without the ability to organize we are doomed.

[DeSwiss]

73. Cowards & Bullies = Flip-Side Of Same Coin

- I cannot be surprised by the likes of those who would SNUFF OUT the lives of women, children and babies with drones. These are not humans. They are decidedly something much, much less.

K&R

[bvar22]

91. I agree.

The people who do this,
along with the people who ENDORSE this,
are beneath my contempt,
as a DEMOCRAT,
but also as a Human Being.

[Rex]

84. 4?

Someone is falling down on the job.

[NYC Liberal]

86. It's bullshit is what it is

And I mean the fact that he was detained.

I say that as someone who is NOT a fan of Greenwald.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

118. Thank you.

Seriously, I mean that.

[NorthCarolina]

106. Anyone pushing that meme is (a) an idiot, or (b) has an agenda. nt

[nashville_brook]

120. +1

[Skittles]

126. the only way to "put away the childish" on DU is to use IGNORE

yes INDEED

[uponit7771]

139. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHIT!! Greenwald ADMITS Miranda was carrying docs for Snowden !!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=1&

[nashville_brook]

140. so, tell us how this is convenient, hype and a ploy.

[DirkGently]

148. And that makes him a terror suspect how?

I guess screaming in all caps is supposed to fill in missing logic there?

[nashville_brook]

169. it's the all-caps that makes it so compelling.

[Celefin]

149. Well of course he would. Why not?

From the NYT

>>>
Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.
<<<

a) it was not for Snowden
b) transporting documents originating from Snowden is not per se illegal
c) the authorities could not have released Miranda if there was reasonable suspicion that he was transporting classified material - but that is not what they detained him for - they used the terrorism act as opposed to detaining him on the grounds of suspected theft of government secrets.

If they had been able to substantiate a claim that Miranda was smuggling classified material they would not have needed to use the terrorism act. So why did they use it?

[nashville_brook]

166. spot on. he would still be in custody if any of this criteria were met.

[AngryAmish]

150. And if he was, so what?

At what point did British authorities become deputized to investigate violations of US secrecy laws?

[nashville_brook]

157. +1

!!

[TBF]

143. K&R nt

[ocpagu]

156. Wonderful post. Thank you n/t

[pnwmom]

177. And it was also not done by the U.S.

Britain has its own extensive surveillance state and its own reasons for being worried about what might be in those documents -- as well as its own history of abuse of terrorism laws. Ask anyone in the IRA.

[nashville_brook]

179. unfortunately, the White House today said the UK conferred with them on it.

it's too bad that Obama is getting involved in the administration of this -- or willing to appear to do so.

[pnwmom]

181. They specifically said that the US was NOT involved in the DECISION or the action.

They were merely given a heads-up that Britain was going to be doing it.

[nashville_brook]

183. if UK is acting alone, why inform the US at the highest levels?

[pnwmom]

185. Why not? Greenwald is still a U.S. citizen, isn't he? It wouldn't be unusual for

a close ally to inform another country that they're about to detain or arrest a very high profile citizen of theirs.

[HooptieWagon]

197. Greenwald wasn't detained.

His Brazillian husband was. I see no reason why the British would inform the US it was going to detain a Brazillian citizen, unless the US was complicit.

[pnwmom]

198. You're right about the citizenship. But close allies often offer each other a heads-up.

It's part of how they remain close allies.

[HooptieWagon]

199. So, you think the US gives Britain a "heads up" ...

...when a Phillipino is detained at LAX?

[pnwmom]

200. If that Phillippino might be carrying thousands of British classified documents?

Yup.

[HooptieWagon]

201. How do you (or the Brits) know Miranda carried "thousands of classified documents"?

And why would his cell phone be confiscated, since it likely didn't contain documents other than texts?

And since neither Greenwald nor Miranda is charged with a crime, nor wanted for arrest, by either country....why should Miranda be detained at all?

[pnwmom]

202. I didn't say he should have been detained.

And I didn't say he was definitely carrying classified documents; I was responding to a hypothetical question about a Phillipino coming into LAX.

On the other hand, it's still possible that the UK will charge Miranda with something. I doubt that they will; but the fact that they didn't arrest him doesn't mean they wouldn't in the future, if he were to come into the UK again. He's not their target, though. It was his computers and phone they wanted.

Based on what we know now (which isn't much), I don't support their actions. They shouldn't have detained him.

[mike_c]

189. yet....

Although there is every indication that the countries doing this sort of thing-- the Evo Morales detention, the Miranda detention-- are colluding with U.S. since they do not have any real stake of their own in stopping Snowden from embarrassing the U.S. But the bigger point is that the power to strong arm corrupts, especially when it is open and acknowledged. It corrupts everyone, but someone has to be first. If that wasn't the U.S., that does NOT mean that our government is not equally corrupt. It just means that someone else set this particular example.

[pnwmom]

190. Britain has plenty of motive for doing this, without any input from the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023492002

[mike_c]

191. that wasn't the point, was it...?

Did you miss the point, or ignore it and try to change the subject?

[pnwmom]

192. You made two points. I chose to respond to one.

There are no rules about that kind of thing here.

[DirkGently]

196. Yet they felt compelled to give us a "heads up" ahead of time.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/white-house-david-miranda-heads-up

So at the very least, they thought we'd be interested, might have some input, or might want to share in whatever they got.

Regardless, it's likely to be read as the U.K. doing our bidding, once again.

[nashville_brook]

194. good point...

i've heard this at recess town halls. people really don't like the potential for corruption. it'svsomething that people feel deeply

[woo me with science]

203. kick