Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

by m1 • 13 years ago

1459 447 13 years ago

cransa2• 13 years ago

This and the fact that Obama is constantly being caught in lies says to me that the U.S. government has no clue what information Edward Snowden has passed off to Greenwald.

k-mcgrady7• 13 years ago

This could be unrelated to the US as details of UK spying were also released.

icambron2• 13 years ago

As I understand it, UK and USA spying are part of a well-connected system also including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I'm not sure there are relevant distinctions to be made here in terms of spying.

cvet• 13 years ago

This is a really interesting bit of speculation. Obama's consistently "just off" statements (i.e. saying an executive order that hadn't been implemented yet would have protected Snowden) make me think that Obama & his advisers doesn't have a good handle on what the NSA is doing and how the law applies to the "secret state." One could say that "Obama is lying," which may be perfectly true, but it could also be that the politicians are genuinely uninformed and/or think protections exist that don't.

I could see this being the case because politicians train to talk about health care and the economy, while the details of NSA programs are rarely discussed and so politicians have little incentive to be up on the facts.

straight_talk_26• 13 years ago

Obama is nothing, but a puppet. His masters surely have blackmail material to absolutely ruin him - say a recording of sex with an underage.

cransa2• 13 years ago

There's no way Obama didn't know. Remember that Obama just appointed James Clapper, who was caught lying to Congress about there being dragnet surveillance on the American people, to a committee to investigate the NSA and make sure these programs are in check. If he didn't know, it seems like he would be rather pissed at Clapper and reluctant to let him investigate his own agency.

k-mcgrady7• 13 years ago

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning.

Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this stuff anymore.

DanBC• 13 years ago

It seems odd that they removed property of a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists (and their materials) had special protections under English law.

Once you get in the country you have different rights (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...) (https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights)

sbarre• 13 years ago

Is he a journalist, or just the partner of a journalist?

Maybe since they know they can't intimidate Greenwald directly they are going after his family and loved ones?

nitrogen2• 13 years ago

Did they say that the partner was carrying information to Greenwald?

GabrielF00• 13 years ago

I'm shocked, shocked... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc

rmc6• 13 years ago

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning.

You haven't read up much history of Northern Ireland? There is a lots of examples of the UK and anti-terrorism laws. Imprisonment without trial, etc.

k-mcgrady7• 13 years ago

I was born in Northern Ireland and have lived here all but 6 months of my life so I'm very familiar with it :)

arcadeparade3• 13 years ago

Not to mention the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

muzz2• 13 years ago

After 9/11, many people were detained for a lot longer than 9 hours [1]

If only the same outrage that exists now, existed back then...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/national/25DETA.html

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

This isn't new. The UK has long had wide-ranging anti-terrorism powers because the IRA were running bombing campaigns in (mostly) London from the late 60s to the late 90s. And every country has different rules for ports/airports, for the same reason they have customs posts there.

switch007• 13 years ago

The 2000 act listed the IRA as a proscribed group but it wasn't the focus of the legislation.

There were major changes to "terrorism" legislation between 2000-2010. The 2001 and later acts/modifications were more a result of 9/11, 7/7 and the "war on terror" (and the UK being Bush's little bitch).

jrockway2• 13 years ago

Where did it say that you could not refuse to answer the questions?

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

Nowhere, it also doesn't say they don't get to pull a rabbit out of a hat and let you stay a little longer.

Theorizing about being intimidated and kept without any form of process is different than being in the middle of it.

Pinckney• 13 years ago

That's what AI is saying:

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.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-deten...

appleflaxen• 13 years ago

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows

What a flagrant abuse of power. It looks like their power should be reigned in.

The acts are fascism. The public would pay more attention if we refer to them as such.

* edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.

omonra3• 13 years ago

Don't be shy - call it what it is - genocide.

rorrr2• 13 years ago

faschism = An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Which fits the situation.

Your genocide reference, an attempt to trivialize the above statement, doesn't even make sense.

GhotiFish• 13 years ago

People did not catch that joke. I think the issue was that you didn't go far enough. The internet has people who would say something like that and mean it. It wasn't absurd enough to be dismissed.

MaysonL2• 13 years ago

I think John Dean's comment about the Bush administration fits this situation: ((perhaps mis-)quaoted from memory)

"They're not on the road to fascism, but they're not very far from that road."

bountie• 13 years ago

So many countries have "Detain first, something-something later" policies that it's easier to make a list of the ones who don't. Like Japan, for example, allows suspects to be arrested and detained for 20+ days without being charge

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive-detention-s...

drunkenmasta• 13 years ago

more of this : "But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

less of this: "ohh noo.. Should I write my opinion on the internet? What if the NSA is watching????! Will I be put on the...the. the list???"

gknoy• 13 years ago

That's a good point: we already know they are watching, and that we are all on the list.

u23282• 13 years ago

How very 20th Century of you. We're all in the database; much more efficient.

ferdo5• 13 years ago

Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

Thievery and intimidation are good indicators of who and what we're dealing with.

rhizome3• 13 years ago

As IRC has taught us for two decades, there are probably few things more antagonistic than a butthurt pirate.

Karunamon• 13 years ago

What are you on about?

scarmig3• 13 years ago

That's not even coherent with the government's story. Or are you really claiming that he was detained and had thousands of dollars of equipment confiscated because Greenwald downloaded some Kylie Minogue MP3s?

northwest4• 13 years ago

Effing cheap intimidation pricks. One day it will come back to haunt them.

throwaway_yy2Di• 13 years ago

Greenwald just posted his own account:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...

At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."

David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras, the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived in London this morning, he was detained.

At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done.

rolux12• 13 years ago

Quote:

"Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they feel threatened by."

ams61104• 13 years ago

Come again? I thought threatening one's family was #1 in the mafia playbook.

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

This sort of thing is why I have a hard time taking Glenn Greenwald at face value. He's a well-educated person who clearly knows that such statements are nonsense.

chiph• 13 years ago

but would only identify himself by his number: 203654

Inspector Javert?

snitko• 13 years ago

Now this number is scary.

moconnor• 13 years ago

Did inspector Javert have a number? The prisoner in Les Miserables was 24601.

mythz4• 13 years ago

Just more evidence that the world is controlled by an oppressive totalitarian Govt that we're effectively powerless to stop.

At least with these incidents we get to know which other countries are complicit and under the influence of the NSA.

rhizome3• 13 years ago

At least history shows us that all totalitarian governments have indeed been stopped at some point. However, history also tells us they really don't like speedbumps on their route to getting to that point.

danenania• 13 years ago

No, we aren't powerless. That's why these people are so relentless in their intimidation and pursuit of more power. If they thought we were powerless, they wouldn't bother. They are afraid, and they should be. The tide can turn quickly.

mythz4• 13 years ago

I don't think the ability to dispense fear and intimidation around the world at will is a show of fear.

Our biggest hope is this becomes a national issue for the next election so we at least have the opportunity to elect the leader who respects our constitutional rights the most.

straight_talk_26• 13 years ago

Maybe it can still turn, but definitely not quickly. It will take a huge amount of effort and blood to take the power away from the sociopath banksters and their puppet politicians, military and media.

IMHO it is very unlikely as very few people in the developed countries today care about political power and modern weapons, like drones and PRISM, are very anti-democratic in nature.

hershel• 13 years ago

It looks pretty democratic to me. Where are the large protests ?

northwest4• 13 years ago

The UK should be kicked out of the EU. Until they learn how to behave.

k-mcgrady7• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure they'd see this as a reward.

dbond• 13 years ago

The public would, politicians not so much...

Vivtek2• 13 years ago

Briefly.

rmc6• 13 years ago

The UK was part of the EU during (most of the) 1970s and 80s, when there was numerous anti-terrorism laws and abuses in Northern Ireland.

homeomorphic2• 13 years ago

The EU came to be in 1993 :)

DrJokepu• 13 years ago

This is probably the worst idea I've read on HN this week.

It's not just legally and politically impossible, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would have dire economic consequences, it would be grossly disproportionate and unfair and these kind of petty attempts at disciplining sovereign nations would only serve to politically destabilise Europe.

claudius5• 13 years ago

Nah, it is actually a pretty good idea. It's high time for the EU to actually take a stance on civil liberties, human rights and the abolishment of these ‘anti-terrorism acts’. This will be a lot harder if there are people at the table working on their application as the 51st state.

Furthermore, by cutting ties with the UK, both its financial and economical situation will be worsened, making for a loss of importance until it’s only an annoying island off the coast of France rather than the first waypoint to Canada or (in this case) Brazil.

Qantourisc• 13 years ago

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand, no matter the cost. (The consequences of not drawing a line, might be far more costly, not economically per se.)

grey-area3• 13 years ago

The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this:

They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1]

This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime, and why the police should never be trusted with exceptional powers simply because we feel under threat. Give them the powers, and they will be misused - in this case they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation. The security services even called Greenwald to give him the news that his partner had been detained.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...

rolux12• 13 years ago

they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation

Intimidation is the purpose of anti-terrorism legislation. This is not an abuse of some exceptional powers -- it's their most common use.

grey-area3• 13 years ago

I disagree. These are exceptional powers (they deliberately negate several important rights like the right to know the charges against you and have a lawyer present), and if they are being misused, they should be taken away.

They are justified to the population on the basis of extreme measures for extreme opponents - if that is shown to be a smokescreen and the security services to be inveterate liars, I think the population will be far less inclined to accept any calls for special terror laws.

The war on terror as an excuse just became rather more transparent.

hga• 13 years ago

This is the same country that used a slightly later, post-9/11 terrorism act to freeze the assets of an Icelandic bank that were in the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbanki_Freezing_Order_2008

Icelanders replied with some good pictures: https://www.google.com/search?q=iceland+terrorism&tbm=isch

Then again this is the country that inspired Nineteen Eighty-Four (Minitrue from Orewell's time at the BBC) and The Prisoner.

saraid2165• 13 years ago

And the entire spy film genre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_film

claudius5• 13 years ago

If you read the Wikipedia article[0] on the ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001’, you will notice that it is not restricted and applicable to areas other than terrorism – serious economic damage to the UK being one of them. So there is at least some slight hyperbole in calling it a ‘post-9/11 terrorism act’, even though its passage was clearly motivated by 9/11.

As an aside, what exactly is wrong with freezing the assets of a company that does not appear to plan to meet its liabilities?

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism,_Crime_and_Secur...

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane.

Taking into account that the UK law enforcement and Brazil have a bit of a history when it comes to labelling people terrorist wrongly makes it even worse.

acqq6• 13 years ago

They were able to do two things:

1) Spend 9 hours pressing the guy in order to learn any details they are interested in. He was probably not prepared enough for that, most of people aren't. Apparently, in such an occasion you don't even have the "right to remain silent!" That is, Mr. David Miranda had no Miranda rights there. I guess they had a good laugh.

2) Get anything from the electronic devices. It's reasonable to expect that both GG and his partner aren't crypto security specialists (GG had problem even starting using crypto).

That they make the pressure to the journalists they saw as the added bonus. Obviously they don't expect that the "public" reacts much.

Note also that UK has laws where you have to give your passwords to the police.

acabal• 13 years ago

I was thinking about this today--whether or not this was a smart move for the government.

On one hand, it's obvious that bullying the partner of a famous journalist is going to get negative media attention.

On the other hand, maybe that's exactly what they want. Maybe they know these laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that sort of media attention ensures that generations will know what happens when they start asking the wrong questions. "Hey kids, just look at what will happen to your family if you start questioning the laws we make to protect you."

Would Greenwald have done a better service if he hadn't told the world what happened to his partner? I don't know--but maybe.

rolux12• 13 years ago

Diversion of a plane carrying a head of state, to be precise.

But yeah, it's not easy to imagine how such decisions are made. Of course, it's one of the features of authoritarianism that the display of authority trumps "tactical mistakes". But it's people who give such orders, not "authoritarianism". The simplistic explanation would be to state they're "pissed off". But maybe reality is quite close to that. By arresting Greenwald's partner, the UK authorities primarily demonstrate, to themselves, that they still hold certain powers -- and I wouldn't underestimate the self-motivational dimension of such a demonstration.

throwit19793• 13 years ago

the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date

Why would this be a tactical mistake? The general public DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK. The government(s) know(s) this quite well.

If you think for a second that detention of associates of political enemies matters to an electorate far more interested in the minutiae of Kanye West's baby, you're living in a fairy land of your own making.

andreyf3• 13 years ago

The intent was quite likely to intimidate other journalists, whistle blowers, or just people in a position to help them. It could also have been to make more public that Greenwald has a younger gay Brazilian partner, something we gloss over in this crowd, but for which he'll be judged harashly for in other social circles.

I don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted when Miranda was detained. Whoever made the decision is playing a PR game, and wanted this to be in the news.

Amadou7• 13 years ago

I think it is quite possible that it was clerical.

Some nameless official put anyone plausibly close to Snowden on one of however many "people of interest" type lists the UK has. It might even be a trickle down from some list in the USA. The original list may not even be intended as a "detain this person" list, but the way these secret lists work sourcing from other lists with different intents means the end result isn't necessarily the intended result.

Tyranny through bureaucracy basically. A little bit ironic what with the guy being Brazilian and Terry Gilliam's opus Brazil dealing with basically the same theme.

rdtsc2• 13 years ago

2 tests perhaps and a warning. I suspect they are a step ahead, and actually did think this through. Whether it will backfire or not is up to the citizens to decide. But I suspect it won't backfire enough to cause a dent.

1) A test to see how the journalist will react and to flush out more information. I.e. force him to disclose more information so they know what he has.

2) Another test is to test public opinion. So far we have seen nothing but defensiveness and accusations from the White House. That bill to de-fund the NSA had some legs but didn't get off the ground. If there is no reaction that is a good benchmark, they don't have to stop and do anything. They could even push the envelope further and probably not get an real repercussions.

3) A warning is a powerful thing. It is message to all other journalists working with NSA sources. "Are you prepared to open your family to harassment, black lists and 9 hour detentions during travel?". As some mentioned in the comments, even the Mafia has basic engagement rules to leave family members alone. That tells one the level of engagement and the mentality of government actors we are dealing with.

nl2• 13 years ago

I can't decide if it is scarier if it came from high-up in the government or not.

If it did, then clearly people in positions of power are happy to abuse them to hold that power.

If it did not, then it implies there is a whole shadow power structure so confident of their position that they are happy to do something like this knowing full well it would get publicity.

jcromartie2• 13 years ago

Taking into account that the UK law enforcement and Brazil have a bit of a history when it comes to labeling people terrorist wrongly makes it even worse.

In case anybody is wondering, the UK murdered a Brazilian man on the train with several bullets to the head after they explicitly identified him as a suspect and authorized his takedown. He had no ties to terrorism at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze...

LekkoscPiwa2• 13 years ago

After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time.

I wouldn't never, ever doubt the amount of sheer stupidity and arrogance of a Government.

cabalamat2• 13 years ago

I wonder from how high up this order came.

I doubt very much if the police would do this off their own bat. What motive would they have to do so?

So it must have come at least from the Foreign Secretary, but more probably the Prime Minister.

The UK government is currently a coalition. The minor partner, the Liberal Democrats, tend to take a slightly more pro civil liberties line than the two big parties. Did they know about this beforehand? Will they kick up a fuss about it? (I suspect not, their leader is a spineless idiot).

epo• 13 years ago

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane.

They are MUCH cleverer than this, it is likely to have been a deliberate provocation to try and get Greenwald to do something rash. It is also a sign that the gloves may be coming off.

w_t_payne7• 13 years ago

Given the political nature of the detention, I suspect that the action would be known about at cabinet level. It is difficult to work out if this was primarily driven by the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or the Department of Transport, given that they all have a role in border security - but the action was almost certainly proposed by a civil servant at one of these institutions - possibly acting on a request from the security services.

Given that David Miranda was transiting through the country, I would guess that the request originated from MI6, which would mean that the request was routed through the FCO, which would put William Hague in the hot-seat.

Helpfully, the Guardian has a list of senior civil servants here (although it is quite out of date):

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jun/16/civil-s...

We could probably make some guesses as to which roles were involved in the decision. (Note: Civil servants only stay in a role for a limited period of time, so it is probable that the individuals named in the above list have moved on to new roles by now, and are not involved).

w_t_payne7• 13 years ago

Considering that the US was given the heads up, I would guess that the order came from Cabinet level, possibly given the nod by William Hague. Now, I have met him, and he is (or appears to be) a very smart guy indeed.

Speculating for a moment that he did give the OK to this, then I do not doubt that he did it with his eyes wide open. He would have known exactly what the PR repercussions were. There must have been a very good reason for him to want to stop Mr. Miranda - which means that it is unlikely to be simple intimidation. (Not the sort of thing that I can imagine your typical Whitehall civil servant stooping to in any case).

My guess is that it was believed that he was carrying a copy of Snowden's cache of documents, and the UK badly wanted to get their hands on a copy. Which is fascinating, if true, because it means that they still do not know what documents he has....

Fun to speculate ....

muzz2• 13 years ago

This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime

Perhaps it is, but the American people don't seem to want that. Kerry voiced a similar opinion in 2004 and Bush took great advantage by pointing that out. Popular opinion appeared to be on Bush's side i.e. that terrorism is not a law enforcement matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/

oscargrouch3• 13 years ago

to see how bad thing is, because its was the UK government abusing its use of force to a brazillian citizen.. so.. the point remains.. things are very much out of control just because a bunch of red necks dont understand what civil rights is, and became puppets of a terrible president..

if you guys did want to burn your constitutional rights, what the rest of the world got to do with it?! we value civil liberties, civil rights and freedom..

i know half north-america also do.. but you must put these guys under control, at least until their IQ raise a little bit, so they cannot push the buttons if your country machinery..

but anyway, now it was also the UK.. we could see this one comming from the US, but UK? as sex pistols would say: nevermind the bollocks

All of our contries has its own bad apples, but its a pretty bad thing when they are running our governments.. shame on you UK!

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

The very fundamental underlying premise of the entire US constitution is the idea that government power should always be carefully limited and extremely well checked. It's shocking how far we've drifted from that ideal.

Unchecked power in the hands of folks with good intention can sometimes be used to great affect to achieve good ends but almost inevitably such powers fall into the hands of folks who would abuse them. More so, even people operating under what they consider to be good intentions can lead to tragedies of unimaginable proportions.

anologwintermut2• 13 years ago

I hate the governments expanded terrorism powers too, but the "we should treat it as a crime" policy is either a naive statement or one where it's non-obvious how to go about it. The criminal justice system is used to punish criminals and through that deter crime. This has little effect on a suicide bomber (nor does the ability to detain people for 9 hours for that matter).

At the same time, treating terrorism prevention as a police mater appears to militarize the police.

regularfry3• 13 years ago

It's not aimed at the suicide bomber. It's aimed at the person convincing them to strap the vest on.

As any organisation, you don't survive very long by detonating your leadership class.

j_baker• 13 years ago

I think the officials who do things like this should be prosecuted under the same terrorism laws they're supposed to be enforicing. This is clearly an act of terrorism on the part of the NSA and GCHQ.

norswap• 13 years ago

Using anti-terrorist laws to terrorize. Clever.

keithpeter• 13 years ago

Welcome to the UK

[1] https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrori...

[2] https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill-tracker/...

I think I'll buy the Guardian tomorrow...

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

Shades of Joseph Wilson. There will be some serious fall out from this, I wonder what they were thinking when they pulled this stunt, Greenwald is not going to be intimidated.

akg_67• 13 years ago

I guess Greenwald, his family and friends are now on terrorist watch list. I wonder how soon Guardian will be dubbed Terrorist Organization.

More and more, it appears western governments are following the policy of if you criticize us, you are terrorist.

LoganCale2• 13 years ago

And as those governments do that, they lose all remaining legitimacy.

mcintyre19942• 13 years ago

The great irony being that as they lose their legitimacy they're gaining power by labeling more people/activities as terrorists/terrorism.

unreal37• 13 years ago

This has been true for 10 years...

"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W Bush

nsns• 13 years ago

I think it's time we started talking of the "English-speaking axis" and its totalitarian tactics.

jlgreco8• 13 years ago

That is probably a tad unfair to Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, etc.

danielharan2• 13 years ago

Canada's RCMP spied on Amnesty, the Anglican Church and the Raging Grannies. Our secret services gave their American counterparts information that led to torture of Canadian citizens and others.

You think we're not part of this totalitarian movement?

Tossrock3• 13 years ago

"Oceania"

kmfrk• 13 years ago

Hypocrisy and doing terrible things in the name of something purportedly important aren't exactly novel themes in Western history.

tjaerv• 13 years ago

"The Five Eyes Alliance" is a good moniker for that: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/is-the-f...

midhir2• 13 years ago

About two or three years ago I was taken aside when boarding a plane at a London airport back to Belfast by a policeman and held under their terrorism legislation. Being heavily hungover from a night spent funding London's publicans, and a little nervous about flying, I just wanted to board the plane and go home.

Nevertheless, I was questioned by the queue as others boarded the plane, casting nasty looks my way. The cop asked some pretty insulting, at times ignorant, questions. I guess to see if I harboured any anti-British/anti-state/anti-cop feelings. I got the impression if I lost my cool I'd be spending a lot longer in that airport.

I didn't know my rights, that's my fault. Nor did I want to escalate a situation where the odds were stacked against me. I did feel pretty disgusted though, given that I'd done nothing wrong. Even now I feel like I shouldn't share this kind of thing online lest the wrong person read it. I found myself asking; why me? Was it something I said on Twitter or Facebook? Did I just look at him the wrong way without realising?

Luckily he let me go after some thorough questioning and the plane waited for me (although finding my seat was basically a walk of shame). They probably do this day and daily to all kinds of people. And most would never talk about it for fear of receiving worse down the line.

northwest4• 13 years ago

why me? Was it something I said on Twitter or Facebook? Did I just look at him the wrong way without realising?

Yeah, don't think too far - it's probably your skin color that makes you a terrrist.

midhir2• 13 years ago

Well... It'd be hard to get much whiter than me! I guess that's my point though, that maybe this guy wasn't targeted but merely a victim of what happens every day. Being associated with the Guardian he'd have known his rights and might've had the confidence to demand them. Not sure which is worse, though.

nitrogen2• 13 years ago

...casting nasty looks my way....

That's one of the worst parts of abuses of power; the people not being abused very quickly start to blame the victims of abuse. "You must be a bad person if they're talking to you," onlookers might be thinking to themselves.

hahainternet7• 13 years ago

In this thread a man being detained for 9 hours has been compared as worse than mafia members murdering people, now apparently the look on the faces of hte officers is a serious abuse too.

This whole thread has destroyed any credibility HN had.

superuser2• 13 years ago

From TFA, one has no rights in this situation. Failure to cooperate with questioning is a crime.

alextingle3• 13 years ago

Fuck that. Let them charge me and let's see what the judge says.

rmc6• 13 years ago

The UK has a long history of abusing anti-terrorism laws. Just look at Northern Ireland.

icambron2• 13 years ago

If you were one of those people who still -- after all this time -- says things like, "it's OK, [insert law] is only for acts of terrorism", now would be a good time to reconsider that.

Or issues of national security or state emergencies or...

u23282• 13 years ago

It's mission creep. Law enforcement will always demand more power in pursuit of what they see as their goal of stopping the bad guys. Trampling all over innocent peoples' civil liberties is unfortunate to them, but they will never cease their pursuit for more power. Have you heard Ray Kelly's argument in defense of stop-and-frisk? "We do this to protect minorities! It's for their own good!" without any mention or even a passing courtesy to said minority's civil rights.

Actually, I can think of one area that probably won't be receiving all the extra scrutiny that the rest of us have been enjoying in new found police state, and that's Wall Street. Someone's gotta pay for all those toys cops have been buying lately.

boi_v2• 13 years ago

I find awesome when this kind of thing happen, It makes pretty clear how the law is manipulated to protect those in power, the fear politics is obviously a strategy to intimidate and control the masses but fortunately, with this kind of abuses, it is becoming more and more apparently.

Tossrock3• 13 years ago

As bad as things are in America vis-a-vis the surveillance state, I've always thought that England is actually worse. I guess it explains why they have such a rich history of dystopian thought. When I saw the "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" poster [1] I couldn't believe it wasn't satire.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

As a Brit, I agree. But, the scope is different. The US threatens literally every country on earth..... the UK?

Ah, bless. Its almost funny, isn't it?

All we can do is harass our own, in order to suck up to Uncle Sam.

TBH, I find UK behavior worse. Its not on principle, its sucking up. My country turns my stomach at times, and this is one of them.

brohee• 13 years ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-inva...

Going by history, the UK is the most threatening entity ever...

PhineasRex• 13 years ago

One the subject of "I can't believe it's not satire". I have always found the "If You See Something, Say Something"[1] videos both humorous and terrifying.

[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jAV1dbGPB4

mathgladiator• 13 years ago

That post gave me chills. Chills.

scarmig3• 13 years ago

Disgusting.

If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be indicted under some terrorist act or another.

And perhaps I should be: it's a deep depravity what happened here, and I'm deeply ashamed it happens anywhere, let alone in the Western world. Soon we won't be able to hold ourselves up as beacons of freedom to those in savage, barbaric places like China where all Internet usage is surveilled or Russia where you can be targeted for being gay or being a member of the press who has printed stories critical of the State.

jonlucc• 13 years ago

Soon? It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished, and we now know that the internet is surveilled.

paganel• 13 years ago

It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished

I've just finished reading a pamphlet written ~370 years ago, in 1644, called "Compassionate Samaritan", authored by a very interesting character named William Walwyn, where he had this to say about the religious establishment of his time:

There they brand men with the name of heretics, and fasten what errors they think are most hateful to the people upon those men they purpose to make odious. There they confute all opinions, and boldly they may do it, for as much as no liberty of reply or vindication in public is allowed to any, though never so much scandalized by them. And that men may not vindicate themselves by writing, their next interest is to be masters of the press, of which they are lately become by an ordinance for licensing books; which, being intended by the Parliament for a good and necessary end, namely the prohibition of all books dangerous or scandalous to the state, is become by means of the licensers, who are divines and intend their own interest, most serviceable to themselves in the stopping of honest men's writings, that nothing may come to the world's view but what they please - unless men will run the hazard of imprisonment, as I now do. So that in public they may speak what they will, write what they will, they may abuse whom they will, and nothing can be said against them. Well may they presume of making themselves masters of the people, having these foundations laid, and the people generally willing to believe they are good.

Now, anyone can replace "the divines" from the (very long) quote with the current establishment and the "heretics" and "honest men" with, well, the few honest men of our times.

shiven• 13 years ago

Pressure-intimidation tactic? Turn up the indignation up a few notches to make Greenwald trip and release more/all NSA-related information in one go, instead of the slow drip-of-death that is making them look like liars with every denial they make.

andy_ppp• 13 years ago

I will be writing to my MP about this disgraceful incident. I will be encouraging others to do the same. In fact I will door step them at their surgery and let them know that this is a line that's been massively overstepped.

kafkaesque• 13 years ago

As Greenwald's response[0] suggests, it seems the only obvious way to cause any type of change (from small to moderate), seems to speak in terms of 'mafia', 'fascism', and 'police state'.

Allow me to take John Stuart Mill out of context momentarily, because he was speaking with regard to Irish-English relationship (territory disputes between the two countries). But it summarises Mill's thought on why radical and extreme thought is useful: it helps bring small to moderate change because it incites dialogue. Unfortunately, this seems to be where we are at now.

"...I well knew that to propose something which would be called extreme was the true way not to impede but to facilitate a more moderate experiment. [...] To induce them to approve of any change it is necessary that they should look upon it as a middle course: they think every proposal extreme and violent unless they hear of some other proposal going still farther, upon which their antipathy to extreme views may discharge itself".[1]

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...

[1] Autiobiography. John Stuart Mill. Penguin Classics. p. 216.

fragsworth2• 13 years ago

Being modest in an argument never convinces anyone of anything. However, if you appear to be seriously pissed and offended, then people tend to think for a moment about it.

Why are they so angry? There must be a good reason.

alexhawdon• 13 years ago

Disclaimer: This is largely speculative and WHOLLY me playing devil's advocate. I do not condone this sort of behaviour by my government.

Could the case be made that journalists are legitimate targets for investigation following on from Manning and Snowdon? My focus here is less on terrorism and more towards counter-intelligence. Were I a rival nation-state I would see an intelligence-gathering opportunity in what's happened: Rather than bribing/coercing people into become informants, there is now the option to invite them to 'blow the whistle' by posing as a journalist.

mcintyre19942• 13 years ago

I agree with what you're saying, but these were anti-terrorism laws. I see how you can play devil's advocate and make an argument of legitimacy as you have, but that doesn't legitimise using anti-terrorism laws for counter-intelligence.

yk2• 13 years ago

If you believe that the security interests of the state should always take precedent, then this argument could be made. However, this is of course a totalitarian position.

jusben13695• 13 years ago

I think this is a terrible mistake but I do wish he'd stop referring to himself as a journalist. He's a political protagonist using his platform for change. Journalist's don't "aggressively" report on stories. It matters because GG is now so tightly integrated into this story that we need to view his comments not as those of an impartial reporter.

I doubt they think they can intimidate him. They probably are hoping they can get their hands on as yet unreleased docs to stop them being published. Either way it's a real mistake.

arcadeparade3• 13 years ago

All Journalism Is 'Advocacy Journalism': http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=a...

ferdo5• 13 years ago

One of the functions of a free press (journalists) is exactly to aggressively report on the malintent of bureaucrats and the maladministration of government power. Actual journalism is and always has been a form of dissent.

jusben13695• 13 years ago

"He said he would respond by writing reports "much more aggressively than before" and would publish "many more documents". "I have lots of documents about the way the secret services operate in England. Now my focus will be there as well," he added. "I think they are going to regret what they did."

- Does it sound like he is now reporting impartially or is he clearly a participant in the game with revenge on his mind?

tokipin• 13 years ago

this reminds me of one of Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments" where he discussed this specific issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDXInEft17k

saraid2165• 13 years ago

Does anyone have the original article link? There are several indications in the comments that it was changed by an HN editor.

m1• 13 years ago

The original article link was http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald...

The title was edited by the mods at least twice.

bwindels• 13 years ago

Original link was AFAIK http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...

eplumlee• 13 years ago

It seems to me that a good line to draw regarding overreach by the government is to determine who or what they're efforts are protecting. Terrorism laws were sold to us as necessary to protect the people. More recently, it seems that the efforts of the government has been to protect itself FROM the people.

jere• 13 years ago

The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654

Yup, looks like we are officially living in some sort of Orwellian dystopia.

jrockway2• 13 years ago

I can't think of any legitimate government questioning someone and not allowing an attorney to be present. This is really scary.

yaddayadda• 13 years ago

I've got a big moral problem with a country interrogating a non-citizen and not allowing an attorney to be present or consulted.

More than a few years ago, I had key evidence about a felony and therefore had good reason to cooperate with the investigating officers. The initial questions were simple, factual, and related to the felony. But then the questions changed. At a certain point the questions became almost accusatory, at which point I started to ask WTF. It was then - and only then - that I was told I was a suspect and read my Miranda Rights. As knowledgeable as I was about my rights in my own country, all this still left dumbfounded. (It turned out the suspect in the felony had subsequently accused me and a colleague of a different felony. For months we were still suspects, had our own rights limited and were interrogated frequently. Thankfully, evidence came to light several months later that firmly cleared me and my colleague.)

I can not imagine being in a foreign country and going through a comparable situation. Beyond the right and wrong of David Miranda being interrogated, I've got a huge moral problem with any country interrogating a non-citizen without legal counsel.

ferdo5• 13 years ago

And one of the foot soldiers of the Powers That Be weighs in:

"Glenn, Glenn - did you really think there'd be zero consequences for you and those close to you? I expected Ed to believe WL lies, but you?"

- John Schindler (@20committee) August 18, 2013

https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257

mrmekon• 13 years ago

My god. The responses are basically saying that they agree with the government kidnapping and robbing the family of a journalist in retaliation for the journalist's legal news coverage.

ferdo5• 13 years ago

Combine those responses with Michael Grunwald's "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" and we can see the lines being drawn right before our eyes.

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

Fox news has it now: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa-leaks-jo...

junto2• 13 years ago

I apologise for my country's idiotic and rude behaviour. I will make sure that I vote for none of the political parties that currently run the country, nor the previous one, as none of them can be trusted.

Again, sorry. Our country is being run by fuckwits. We keep voting for different parties but it doesn't seem to make a difference.... Hang on a sec....

rdl7• 13 years ago

I'm curious exactly what you have to do in transit through the UK if detained and questioned. I'd presumably identify myself, and comply politely for a few minutes, but once it became pretty clear I was going to miss my flight, I'd want to know the various options. I have zero interest in being in the UK if in transit, so "we're going to send you back to Germany" "do it, then" is fine. Or, "you're an asshole, we're going to put you on the next flight to Brazil and never let you enter the UK" is also fine. The risk would be that "actively non-cooperative" is a sign of "is a terrorist" and then you get the free flight to Cuba.

It seems obvious that a targeted person should travel with a lot of older/disposable devices full of lightly encrypted but legal "NSFL" material, like medical/battlefield/surgery photos or, depending on the country, various types of legal porn. Or perhaps Slavoj Zizek books sans title information.

rdl7• 13 years ago

Oh wow, under title 7 in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to answer questions for any reason during that 9 hour period.

Looks like a total travel boycott of the UK is prudent. In addition to compelled disclosure of keys, it is worse than the US for this reason too.

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

Funny I thought you of all people would be aware of this :)

Yes, the UK is worse. I never really got why Assange went there willingly in the first place.

gsnedders2• 13 years ago

Try asserting any right to silence at the US border — you won't get far. If you are not a US national, I'd expect you to be refused entry (and as one is required to complete an ETSA prior to arrival, one is required to sign away any right to appeal of the decision of the border control staff).

Andrew_Quentin4• 13 years ago

They are not in UK though. They are in a transit zone which arguably is international land. So the UK laws would not apply.

iandanforth• 13 years ago

This is crime. The people who authorized this should be put in jail and the officers present should at least be fired.

It should not be allowed that power is so easily abused, nor should written laws be so easily twisted without fear of consequence.

I believe a civil disruption of the airport specifically targeting the security apparatus would be an appropriate response.

To the cynics, yes, I am idealistic and, yes I'm pretty much just venting, but damn, this is just going too far. Suggestions for constructive frustration welcome.

_yields• 13 years ago

The people who authorized this should be put in jail

By who ?

awjr• 13 years ago

I find this so hard to deal with. There's party of me screaming at the screen saying what is happening is so so so wrong more, but another part of me fears for my family. The fact I fear for my family feels like my head is above the parapet. The problem more than anything is that nobody around me seems to be that bothered about this. WTF do I do?

efdee• 13 years ago

Why do you fear for your family?

api• 13 years ago

HN is a smart bunch, so I'm going to ask:

Why do people think the security state is being rammed through with such a sense of urgency right now? Are they expecting something? A war? An economic crisis? Ecological meltdown? Invasion from outer space?

I ask because I get the impression that there is a top-down (from the executive branch) full-court-press on this, and that the gloves are coming off. That leads me to wonder if there's something driving this, some sense of urgency.

yk2• 13 years ago

It is not pushed with especial sense of urgency, there were the crypto wars in the nineties for example[1]. On the other hand, if there is a special sense of urgency then it is probably more future shock than anything concrete. From the perspective of the old mans with pencils, suddenly you get all these leaks and you get all this computer stuff they do not really understand. So they err on the side of heavy handed security, because they do no longer trust their model of the world.

[1] http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

Now or never?

gabrielrotbart• 13 years ago

This is a theory only and it relates to rdtsc (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6234271) reply which is inline with my own thoughts:

9/11 and the lack of civilian resistance to a lot of the government actions which followed has (IMHO) shown that they can push the envelope and encounter no outcry. 'They' have continued the push ever since.

I would love to be corrected on this, but I can't think of another modern era when so much obvious, unscrupulous actions were taken by authorities and yet no grand resistance was put up.

olefoo• 13 years ago

I think Charles Stross said it best[1], what we have now is effectively the ancien regime pre-revolutionary state; that MUST retain absolute control, lest the natural order be shattered irretrievably.

In effect, the guardians of the status quo are in full panic mode and are not necessarily reacting rationally.

This is why this incident should be investigated by ( on the UK side ) a parliamentary commission, and ( on the US side ) by an independent congressional commission.

1. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-dr...

w_t_payne7• 13 years ago

I agree .. but I also think that technological change is exacerbating old stresses in the system.

randomsearch• 13 years ago

I suspect it is actually quite straightforward. After 9/11, security services were given free reign to do whatever they thought necessary to prevent a similar atrocity. Many laws were passed that would never have been considered if 9/11 had not occurred. I don't believe most politicians were taking advantage of the situation, rather they were threatened and scared by what happened and over-reacted.

The recent PRISM scandal has exposed the results of this short-term and irrational behaviour, and now the UK and US governments are embarrassed and angry. Either they regret their surveillance of their own citizens, or else they still believe in it and are angry at the revelation. So rather than repair the situation, they're making it worse.

The final component is that extraordinary powers will always be abused, eventually. And this is probably what we have seen here.

I don't believe in any huge conspiracy, just a political elite that is often incompetent, and (particularly in the UK) stuck in the past.

It now feels impossible to criticise other countries for their appalling human rights records. We don't respect democracy or freedom, so how can we ever argue in its defence? The Western powers should be the torchbearers for democracy, not those trampling on it.

I think the solution is more whistle-blowing until we achieve sufficient transparency from the states involved and ethical behaviour from the security services. The EU is also already doing a great job of criticising the US and UK, and hopefully that political pressure will pay off. A change of government on both sides of the atlantic (don't hold you breath in the UK) would also provide an opportunity for progress.

brohoolio• 13 years ago

How long until the organizations that protect us meet the definition of terrorists themselves?

jacquesm35• 13 years ago

Depending on the country some have already reached that definition. Terrorism is a nebulous enough term that it can be made to fit a large variety of entities. That's exactly why it was chosen.

thufry• 13 years ago

Never. The word "terrorism" is a word used by the incumbent power to describe that which is "other." They get to decide who the word applies to and who it doesn't.

tracker1• 13 years ago

As a U.S. citizen, I am more and more surprised that we aren't subject to a world wide trade embargo... We're as reliant on food grown in south/central america as in our own country, or others are reliant on us. As for tech, if China/Taiwan/Japan closed off all sales, the public would show significant outrage.

I don't think most people in this country will care until they can't buy a new iPhone 6, or Galaxy S 5... What I am really surprised by is how many other countries have tolerated this so far.

roryokane• 13 years ago

I don’t understand why this article so carefully avoids the word “spouse”. I had no idea what kind of partner David Miranda was – business, romantic, or marriage – for most of the article. The story only hinted at the meaning in the third-to-last paragraph, about “detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists”. Was this just bad editing, or does nobody talk about “business partners” any more?

SEMW2• 13 years ago

It's just a style issue. From 2004 until very recently gay couples in England could only get a 'civil partnership', not a marriage; possibly because of that 'X is Y's partner' in the UK is these days understood as meaning a romantic attachment. (The business meaning still exists, but is phrased as e.g. "X and Y are both partners at Foobar LLP" rather than "X is Y's partner").

kevinpet• 13 years ago

I stopped reading when he implied that the US was behind it. GB is a sovereign country, and still a democracy. If you don't like the fascist laws people are voting for, stop voting for them. If you blame some outside party, you're just passing the buck and making excuses why you can't convince people to grow a spine and stop voting for the status quo -- "oh, my people would never put up with this, but the big bad USA is forcing us to". If your politicians have signed you up to be the enforcers for a little mafia protection racket, maybe they shouldn't be in office.

cma• 13 years ago

"US is behind it" doesn't mean "US has sole responsibility for it, letting GB off the hook".

jusben13695• 13 years ago

I was just saying on a post the other day how badly the government(s) are losing the PR battle. Quite amazing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584

ad80• 13 years ago

They do it because they can and they learned that the public will scream for a few days and move on with their daily problems soon after.

It's sad, very sad. I am pessimistic and I have an impression looking at how Obama and co. are lying without any consequences, what NSA has being doing and other recent examples, that we lost that war and we have no tools to fight against it.

everyone2• 13 years ago

For me the most absurd thing is that all this erosion of peoples rights and several wars have been justified by the threat of terrorism. I'm not going to even bother finding some statistics to post right now but the actual threat of terrorism is vanishingly small. For example in 2012, more Americans died crushed by their TVs or furniture than from terrorism.

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/sta...

noblethrasher• 13 years ago

Be careful with this kind of argument. Among the reasons that we object to the treatment of Mr. Miranda et. al. is that it can cause a chilling effect, similar to what terrorism does.

Are you prepared to argue that the threat of home furniture will ever cause a chilling effect?

everyone2• 13 years ago

Yes, I agree there is a difference between an accident and an attack. The main point I'm making is the organisations involved are clearly using terrorism as a pretext, greatly inflating its media presence. If the US for example really wanted to reduce terrorism things like better universal education and social welfare would probably really be effective as the vast majority of the US' terrorism is internal. (Killing of abortion clinic doctors and so forth)

DigitalSea• 13 years ago

There's no doubt "terrorism" laws are abused on a daily basis to intimidate and scare people into being good citizens, the question here is who in the chain of command and how far up the chain did the order get carried down from and why? This whole NSA, Prism stuff is getting out of hand. It's not a nice feeling living in a world where Governments are spying on their citizens and those abroad in plain sight and knowing there is nothing anyone can do about it except go off the grid completely and well, it's 2013, it's not exactly easy to do that.

I can only hope that this incident is investigated further and that we get some solid answers from those in power about why David had been detained for the legally permitted time of 9 hours without charge.

616c• 13 years ago

I happened to be a fairly conservative high schooler after September 11th, living in NJ suburb. 9/11 happened in my time there. I saw smoke from the city, not quite the buildings themselves, and classmates lossed parents. We were all militant after that, and someone needed to burn.

No matter how conservative my friends and I were, we saw not so long after those days Farenheit 9/11, the then controversial 9/11 documentary. No matter how hard-core Republican I was then (spending time in the Arab world later had me quickly outgrow that), I was appalled by the admission of lifer Congressman, scumbag Charles Rangel (NY - D) in his interview in the movie. He said no one he knew read the Patriot Act, not a single one, him included. No one would say no at the time to such legislation. Even as a sophomore I was appalled and said in the first real interest in non-partisan politics, we should have people removed for such incompetence.

As I said I was a sophomore then, and discovered subsequently how very sophmoric I was. Nothing is more self-serving than govt in crisis, in the alia acta est way. That was the beginning of my disbelief in my government, then all government more as each year passes. Fuck them all.

smegel• 13 years ago

God, imagine if Russia had done this, and how the UK/USA would have responded.

The UK's credibility as a democracy is fading fast...

fixxer• 13 years ago

Someone left a Gandhi quote in the comments section on the Guardian... worth rewriting here I think:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi

brokentone• 13 years ago

So what do we do?

ChristianMarks• 13 years ago

That's the last straw for me. From now on, my private communications are between me and my deceased cat.

LekkoscPiwa2• 13 years ago

if a 82 year old nun is charged terrorism than why not journalists and who ever else that's not convenient:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan-rice-s...

tomorrow this can be us just for posting the truth on the forum here folks! Wake up!

pinaceae3• 13 years ago

so this is one side of the story. no one knows what happened during that questioning, why amd how it started and how his partner acted.

case in point, there was this guy who stripped naked at a TSA check a while back.

you yourself can easily trigger an incident like this and escalate it.

right now there is one side of the story, reported by a deeply involved, non-objective actor. if you ask a parent about what happened to their kid in school when it was expelled you'll also get a very subjective, partisan take.

this "discussion" here smells of the reddit hivemind, quickly jumping to conclusion, throwing around terms like fascism and full of nerd bravado. nobody asks what really happened.

pinaceae3• 13 years ago

and to the downvoters - there are now emerging articles that Miranda was carrying classified information. so yeah, more sides to the story, but who gives a shit because fascism.

eCa• 13 years ago

Is it terrorism to carry classified information?

Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. [1]

Ok... Someone with a lot of power is too easily intimidated.

[1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition

2a0c40• 13 years ago

Disgusting. But may I dare to suggest that in his case it was extremely naïve, if not outright deliberate, to choose an airport in the UK to change planes?

sklivvz1971• 13 years ago

Welcome to dystopia, friend. We have polonium-laden cookies, would you like some?

w_t_payne7• 13 years ago

Not really relevant, but I am greatly amused between the current relationship that we have with our security services and the situation that Terry Gilliam portrays in his excellent film: "Brazil".

After all, when the security state starts to be driven by the profit motive, were we really so naive as to expect anything less?

asaarinen• 13 years ago

I'd guess what they were looking for was any one of the leaked top-secret NSA documents on his laptop, the hard drive of which is being analyzed as we speak...

Had they found anything during the 9 hours, I'm afraid he wouldn't be flying to Brazil - he would have been detained indefinitely as a "terror" suspect in order to intimidate Greenwald even more.

makerops• 13 years ago

I know it is the British who detained Mr. Miranda, and not the US but Groucho Marx would have loved the setup.

tmslnz• 13 years ago

Unlikely and perhaps wrong under most perspectives, but as soon as I read Greenwald's account I thought "shit, he's caught the bait". The government and those detaining his man were wholly aware of what a shitstorm this would have caused. I would have LOVED to see the alternative scenario, where Greenwald tells Miranda "Don't tell anyone else.". The police wouldn't and couldn't speak publicly, no-one gets to know about the event, the political game of those who had this brilliant idea is now in pieces. The gov's option at that point would have been to further escalate their offensive, exposing themselves even more. Instead what we got now is a lawful, yet badly-intentioned use of the law, which is grave, but likely insufficient to warrant & spark any significant tectonic movements.

mrt0mat0• 13 years ago

Does anyone else see the humor in his last name being "Miranda"?

mehmehshoe• 13 years ago

"Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence."

Wait...What? HFSMFCSWTF!

Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

Related Stories