Husband of NSA-leak reporter detained under UK anti-terror law

[harryfrompattaya]

This should be a message to all people who support traitors that they will have a problem. It should also be noted that they cannot hide behind the cloak of 'journalism.'

I agree with you but maybe these traitors should be shot

[geriatrickid]

toyboy...plucked eyebrows

Homophobic much?

If he was carrying something "illegal" then bloody well arrest him and charge him with a crime. Otherwise, <deleted>.

Toyboy isn't a specific homosexual term. I suggest you look up the definition.. And yes, he apparently manages his unibrow.

I posted the link from the Telegraph. Read it. The Brazilian was transiting the UK. The UK had every right to stop and search a foreign national who had been visiting with an associate of the traitor Snowden. Apparently, there were several items of interest.

[Zooheekock]

toyboy...plucked eyebrows

Homophobic much?

If he was carrying something "illegal" then bloody well arrest him and charge him with a crime. Otherwise, <deleted>.

Toyboy isn't a specific homosexual term. I suggest you look up the definition.. And yes, he apparently manages his unibrow.

I posted the link from the Telegraph. Read it. The Brazilian was transiting the UK. The UK had every right to stop and search a foreign national who had been visiting with an associate of the traitor Snowden. Apparently, there were several items of interest.

Don't be stupid - the stink of homophobia coming off you is unmistakable.

On the subject of whether or not the UK was right to use anti-terror law to stop and search someone who was not suspected of anything vaguely related to terrorism, the answer is an unequivocal 'no'. Even Lord Falconer, who was partly responsible for introducing this law, has said that stopping and searching Miranda was a gross misuse of the law. And, from the British standpoint, Snowden is quite obviously not a traitor (and only the most brainless Fox-bot zombie could possibly think that alerting American citizens to the incipient fascism of their own state qualifies him as a traitor, though if the hat fits, you wear it all you like).

Edited August 21, 2013 by Zooheekock

[Scott]

We can drop the accusations of homophobia. Toyboy is quite frequently used to refer the young men who are companions for some of the Hollywood actresses (as in the female kind -- such as Demi Moore).

Please discuss the topic and not the poster.

[jayboy]

I don't suppose it matters that that encrypted files believed to originate from Snowden were reported to have been found on the Brazilian toyboy, does it?

He was long suspected of being a courier conduit. This is man is involved right up to his plucked eyebrows.

Involved in what? Terrorism or suspected terrorism? He was paid by, therefore employed by, the Guardian. In effect, a journalist.

Greenwald is employed by the Guardian. Miranda isn't. He's Greenwald's partner.

No this was a Guardian lie - Mirinda was being paid by the newspaper.Another lie was that he was not provided with a lawyer - he was, but refused one.

All my sympathies were initially with Greenwald/Snowden because press freedom is hugely important. The British Government/police have to explain the incident fully.And yet there is much on the other side that needs to be spelled out too.I don't believe all the Guardian has to say and Greenwald's reaction was strangely petulant and evasive.Watch this space - the story's not over by a long shot.

[jpinx]

Bang goes the freedom of the press

Just how far removed do I have to be to avoid being detained under some "special order" - wife of a reporter doing his job is already pretty far out there -- are they going to drag in the wife's mother and grill her too ????????

Seriously - Tony Blair started the rot when he rolled over to the pressure to invade Iraq and things have just gone downhill ever since -- but I guess we're doomed/damned now.....

Edited August 21, 2013 by jpinx

[Guest]

Free press is one of the elementary pilars of modern and democratic societies. Press have resources to get information, which ordinary citisens do not have. We all need the press to be able to report the faul play people in power are doing.

This will keep the people in power to respect (or fear) the public. They are, after all, public servants, not the masters.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted.

[manarak]

Apparently the UK newspaper The Guardian was pressured to destroy all their harddisks with Snowden data on them, and the life partner of their lead journalist for the case was held by UK spooks for 9 hours without charge and without suspicion under terrorism charges.

Ah, the UK, little lapdog of the USA, would do everything for their master.

Anyone saying this is not worrying must be blind. A country whose police force considers journalism to be terrorism has serious problems as a democracy.

The US probably figured that since Putin has forbidden Snowden to reveal more stuff while Snowden is under asylum in Russia, that they could try to prevent publication of the remaining data.

Note to journalists: publish everything you got at once, unless you want to be ordered to destroy your evidence.

[manarak]

This should be a message to all people who support traitors that they will have a problem. It should also be noted that they cannot hide behind the cloak of 'journalism.'

In the US, journalists often hide behind the "cloak of journalism".

It is called Freedom of the Press and is covered under the First Amendment.

aah, this pesky constitution - it seems to always have an article getting in the way of the good guys ;-)

[prepress]

This should be a message to all people who support traitors that they will have a problem. It should also be noted that they cannot hide behind the cloak of 'journalism.'

I agree with you but maybe these traitors should be shot

Welcome to the Middle Age - or you join Iran, Saudi Arabia and most 3rd world countries...

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed from view. Continued posting will result in a suspension.

[jayboy]

Apparently the UK newspaper The Guardian was pressured to destroy all their harddisks with Snowden data on them, and the life partner of their lead journalist for the case was held by UK spooks for 9 hours without charge and without suspicion under terrorism charges.

Ah, the UK, little lapdog of the USA, would do everything for their master.

Anyone saying this is not worrying must be blind. A country whose police force considers journalism to be terrorism has serious problems as a democracy.

The US probably figured that since Putin has forbidden Snowden to reveal more stuff while Snowden is under asylum in Russia, that they could try to prevent publication of the remaining data.

Note to journalists: publish everything you got at once, unless you want to be ordered to destroy your evidence.

That's one view.Here's another:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/louisemensch/100231784/david-miranda-detention-why-i-believe-the-guardian-has-smeared-britains-security-services/

A more complex story than at first appeared.But whatever the interpretation it's becoming very clear now Greenwald has been lying through his teeth.

Edited August 21, 2013 by jayboy

[SinglePot]

Always thought there was something dodgy about Greenwald ever since his TV presentation about Snowden became less like reporting and more like the Glenn Greenwald Show.

Drama queen.

[7by7]

What the heck is happening in the UK? First Miranda, and now they are destroying Guardians hard drives.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/8/19/4638202/uk-officials-destroy-guardian-hard-drives-in-misguided-effort-to-stop

Shame you seem to have relied on a link that is factually incorrect.

The move to destroy the Guardian files containing this material has been under negotiation for some time.

From the BBC

(Guardian editor) Mr Rusbridger said that after two months of meetings and the threat of court action, two security experts from GCHQ, the UK's eavesdropping centre, came to the Guardian's offices to oversee the destruction of computer hard-drives.

(My emphasis)

This, and other information there for those who care to look, indicates that the authorities have suspected for some time that Greenwald has been receiving sensitive information from Snowden which if made public could put at risk both the UK's and the USA's intelligence operations and operatives against international terrorism at risk and that Miranda has been acting as a courier of this information.

Freedom of the press is important, but so is the responsibility of the press. Publishing information which not only obstructs anti terrorism operations but also puts the lives of those conducting those operations at risk is not responsible.

To take an example from history; had a newspaper discovered and published the details of the Normandy landings in 1944; would that of been responsible? Would those now placing the freedom of the press above all other considerations have felt the same then?

"But that was a war against a great evil," they may say. So is the war against terrorism!

[mania]

Lets take a more recent example & that is what has been leaked so far.

How has that been a threat to the security of the US or the UK?

It has only been a threat to those shadow figures who abuse the law/Constitution

It does not put those folks lives at risk anymore than bringing any other criminal to justice.

[jayboy]

What the heck is happening in the UK? First Miranda, and now they are destroying Guardians hard drives.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/8/19/4638202/uk-officials-destroy-guardian-hard-drives-in-misguided-effort-to-stop

Shame you seem to have relied on a link that is factually incorrect.

The move to destroy the Guardian files containing this material has been under negotiation for some time.

From the BBC

(Guardian editor) Mr Rusbridger said that after two months of meetings and the threat of court action, two security experts from GCHQ, the UK's eavesdropping centre, came to the Guardian's offices to oversee the destruction of computer hard-drives.

(My emphasis)

This, and other information there for those who care to look, indicates that the authorities have suspected for some time that Greenwald has been receiving sensitive information from Snowden which if made public could put at risk both the UK's and the USA's intelligence operations and operatives against international terrorism at risk and that Miranda has been acting as a courier of this information.

Freedom of the press is important, but so is the responsibility of the press. Publishing information which not only obstructs anti terrorism operations but also puts the lives of those conducting those operations at risk is not responsible.

To take an example from history; had a newspaper discovered and published the details of the Normandy landings in 1944; would that of been responsible? Would those now placing the freedom of the press above all other considerations have felt the same then?

"But that was a war against a great evil," they may say. So is the war against terrorism!

Interestingly the Guardian was under no legal requirement to destroy the hard drives.There was no court order or any binding rquirement of that kind.It could have refused but decided to go along with the security agencies' (no doubt firmly expressed) request.No doubt The Guardian will provide an explanation in due course

P.S Just heard that the Editor Mr Rusbridger has done just that. Unless the newspaper destroyed the hard drives the matter would go to law and the British concept of prior restraint would apply.Rusbridger understandably wanted to avoid this.He pointed out there were copies of all the files in the US and Brazil.OK I understand now.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Scott

[7by7]

Lets take a more recent example & that is what has been leaked so far.

How has that been a threat to the security of the US or the UK?

It has only been a threat to those shadow figures who abuse the law/Constitution

It does not put those folks lives at risk anymore than bringing any other criminal to justice.

So far being the operative words.

I take it you would prefer Snowden, and others like him, leaked material which damaged the security of the US, the UK or anywhere else and resulted in another 9/11 or 7/7 before any action was taken. I'd rather he was stopped before that happened.

[manarak]

Freedom of the press is important, but so is the responsibility of the press. Publishing information which not only obstructs anti terrorism operations but also puts the lives of those conducting those operations at risk is not responsible.

To take an example from history; had a newspaper discovered and published the details of the Normandy landings in 1944; would that of been responsible? Would those now placing the freedom of the press above all other considerations have felt the same then?

"But that was a war against a great evil," they may say. So is the war against terrorism!

Congratulations, you win the Godwin award for this thread.

We know that the NSA surveillance has had rather meager outcomes in terms of prevention of terror acts.

Your comparison with the situation 1944 is not valid. D-Day was not an evil act.

You could compare it though to a situation where a UK newspaper would have revealed that the allies were about to deliberately murder tens of thousands of civilians in German cities such as Dresde, Hambourg, etc.

Miranda was acting as a courier for Greenwald, his trips were paid by the Guardian.

[mania]

Lets take a more recent example & that is what has been leaked so far.

How has that been a threat to the security of the US or the UK?

It has only been a threat to those shadow figures who abuse the law/Constitution

It does not put those folks lives at risk anymore than bringing any other criminal to justice.

So far being the operative words.

I take it you would prefer Snowden, and others like him, leaked material which damaged the security of the US, the UK or anywhere else and resulted in another 9/11 or 7/7 before any action was taken. I'd rather he was stopped before that happened.

You are basically twisting it all to fit a possible scenario that has not occurred.

What has occurred is obvious that is reality period!

"So Far" as you say is the only reality

I do not entertain "what if's" at the cost of liberties & rights.

If you do & the majority of others also do then good luck to you all

as you will surely have the government you deserve.

But do not cry about it later. Do not be like many & ask how did

a Fascist Government or a government that tramples its citizens rights get so powerful.

As it was folks like you who begged them to come into their homes & private lives.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[manarak]

Lets take a more recent example & that is what has been leaked so far.

How has that been a threat to the security of the US or the UK?

It has only been a threat to those shadow figures who abuse the law/Constitution

It does not put those folks lives at risk anymore than bringing any other criminal to justice.

So far being the operative words.

I take it you would prefer Snowden, and others like him, leaked material which damaged the security of the US, the UK or anywhere else and resulted in another 9/11 or 7/7 before any action was taken. I'd rather he was stopped before that happened.

Your argument is not coherent.

First you ask journalists to be responsible with what they publish, and now you say better to not trust them to be responsible.

So which do you want?

Responsibility or censorship?

[7by7]

Manarak; invoking the Godwin award shows you have no argument to counter mine.

Where did I say that D-day was an evil act? I didn't.

The bombing of German cities is a controversial subject; but remember Coventry, London, etc. It was total war.

But I am confused; the last sentence of that post seems to show that you are in agreement with me!

Your second post makes no sense. I have said that journalists should be responsible; yes they should. But if they are not, then to safeguard the lives and freedoms of their citizens then yes, they should be censored.

Would you prefer a paper to publish the full details of any counter terrorism operation, thus allowing the terrorists to escape and kill again?

Mania; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson; but actually no one knows who actually said it.

Edited August 21, 2013 by 7by7

[mania]

Mania; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson; but actually no one knows who actually said it.

The fact that the vigilance was to be aimed at your own government lest they go wild

seems to have been lost

That the Constitution was written to guide that vigilance.

So now we have new guides called the Patriot Act & declaring National States of Emergency that lasts

over a decade when it was designed to be used as an emergency temporary measure suggests

the vigilance has been lacking as both things allow sidestepping the Constitution. The very thing that was

to protect our freedoms against such acts as what Snowden uncovered.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[7by7]

So, mania, you would have us abandon all security services, all actions by those services, all official secrets and let those secrets fall openly into the hands of those who wish us harm?

If that were to happen, we would all be living in constant fear.

[Scott]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

[mania]

So, mania, you would have us abandon all security services, all actions by those services, all official secrets and let those secrets fall openly into the hands of those who wish us harm?

If that were to happen, we would all be living in constant fear.

The fact that you would condone the loss of liberties & rights based on a "What If" suggests you already live in a constant state of fear.

Except I believe the catch phrase is now Terror

I do not know which secrets you are speaking of but I of course

understand the need for National Security & Self Defense

What has been uncovered by Snowden is neither.

It is an offense not a defense

Let me ask you.......Do you think all the citizens of Fascist Governments were all ignorant?

I don't. Yet how did folks like Hitler & Mussolini, Japan etc. swing it?

It is not hard to see as it is historic

We now follow in those footsteps

You need not believe me just go check & see. It is all there to be read.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[SinglePot]

Shame there was insufficient vigilance to stop confidential information getting in the hands of shysters like Greenwald and Miranda.

We are not talking about men of honour like Woodward and Bernstein are we.

[mania]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

I can't say I know how it works but yes. perhaps someone from the Uk will chime in.

Constitution of the United Kingdom

They obviously have something similar to the Patriot Act that they call

Anti Terror laws.

It obviously is not as bad as the Patriot Act as it seems by this story to have limits

based in hours allowed to be held ( 9 hours? )

"The person must be released after nine hours unless charges are filed or a court allows more time for questioning."

On the other hand

The Patriot Act allows them to basically take you to Gitmo & never be heard from again.

No Habeas Corpus under the Patriot Act

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[manarak]

Manarak; invoking the Godwin award shows you have no argument to counter mine.

Where did I say that D-day was an evil act? I didn't.

The bombing of German cities is a controversial subject; but remember Coventry, London, etc. It was total war.

But I am confused; the last sentence of that post seems to show that you are in agreement with me!

Your second post makes no sense. I have said that journalists should be responsible; yes they should. But if they are not, then to safeguard the lives and freedoms of their citizens then yes, they should be censored.

Would you prefer a paper to publish the full details of any counter terrorism operation, thus allowing the terrorists to escape and kill again?

Mania; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson; but actually no one knows who actually said it.

"Manarak; invoking the Godwin award shows you have no argument to counter mine."

>> well, umm...

I was under the impression that I quite destroyed your argument with the following two points:

- NSA surveillance didn't yield much results for counterterrorism

- your argument uses the example of a non-evil scheme (the D-Day) while spying on people and breaking the constitution certainly is.

"Where did I say that D-day was an evil act? I didn't."

Correct - and I even said it wasn't.

My point is the D-Day wasn't an evil act, and the NSA breaking the US constitution is - which invalidates your example of papers publishing details of the D-Day.

"The bombing of German cities is a controversial subject; but remember Coventry, London, etc. It was total war."

Correct. Maybe we can agree that the NSA surveillance is also a controversial subject, thus validating a comparison?

"But I am confused; the last sentence of that post seems to show that you are in agreement with me!"

Good insight indeed. My point is that Miranda was doing journalistic work and has to be considered as a journalist, not a terrorist.

"Your second post makes no sense. I have said that journalists should be responsible; yes they should. But if they are not, then to safeguard the lives and freedoms of their citizens then yes, they should be censored."

Your argument requires the authorities to know in advance whether journalists will be responsible or not, because censorship must be done before publication. Do you see now how trust and censorship cannot be done at the same time?

"Would you prefer a paper to publish the full details of any counter terrorism operation, thus allowing the terrorists to escape and kill again?"

- just "any counterterrorism" op does not involve the government spying on every citizen and breaking the constitution

- the NSA surveillance didn't yield much for the benefit of counterterrorism, this has been demonstrated

- the fact that governments (unlawfully) spy on their citizens weighs more than than a few bombs going up here and there. Freedom and democracy are at stake, people used to die for such causes in the past. Maybe people aren't willing to die for their freedom anymore. Bread and games

Edited August 21, 2013 by manarak

[lomatopo]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

Mr. Miranda was detained under the UK's Schedule 7 Terrorism Act, which seems to be a bit like portions the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act, of 2001 is an overwhelmingly complex set of individual "Titles", which even the British seem have avoided adopting in full.

I am under the impression that the British have a sort of constitution based on statutes, orders, conventions, documented historical writings, all of which combine to guarantee individuals similar rights and freedoms.