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

[mania]

So, mania, can you explain how your rights have been destroyed.

Your emails, phone calls and even posts on this forum may have been automatically scanned for certain key words which if occurring may have meant more detailed examination by an actual human being; but that's it.

I doubt very much that the FBI will be knocking on your door because of your posts on Thai visa!

You may doubt & I might also care less if they looked at my mail but

that is not how the USA operates....At least not how it is suppose to operate.

There is a reason why the USA has survived while other so called democracy's have failed.

That is because we are a Constitutional Republic ruled by Constitutional LAW period

What you or the shadowy figures think does not matter as to whether someones rights are important or not

They are INALIENABLE Period

The difference between a Constitutional Republic & a democracy is

in a Democracy it is Mob Rule & usually with the excuse being it is for "the public good"

You should look at what Fascism is & how it took hold in the countries I mentioned before

If you are not surprised by the similarities I would be surprised myself

It usually starts with an enemy needing to be identified

Then irrational Nationalism starts

Next secrecy is demanded....Literally Keep Your Mouth Shut...If Your Not With Us Your Against Us aka: a Terrorist, a Traitor etc.

Next rights disappear & the media is controlled

Only gets worse from there.

But how many of those things would you say are already rolling along?

The old Edmond Burke quote

All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...

seems appropriate

But I never expect a citizen to just bend over

But,

If that is what one chooses & sees no problem with letting their rights disappear

to that I say well, that is your choice, your right

But do not expect all to agree with you.

Even the shadow figures themselves know they are still outnumbered

Otherwise they would use the legal channels to get what the want in the way of rights trampling, terrorist chasing tools.

Yet they do not go that legal route & we know why.

Because they would be Denied ! As they should be.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[jpinx]

We will, of course, never know what acts of terrorism, or other crimes, have been prevented by the surveillance techniques which some object to so much.

Those techniques and the information vital to the public's safety which they uncover must be kept secret; any fool knows that. To bring them into the public domain using the excuse of press freedom is, as Publicus says, giving that information directly to the terrorists.

After 9/11, after 7/7 people were highly critical of both the US and UK governments for not finding out about the attacks in advance and stopping those atrocities.

Many of those same people are now critical of the surveillance techniques now being used in the effort to prevent such atrocities happening again.

If governments do nothing they are accused of negligence; if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

From a UK perspective - this should give you some idea about the likelyhood of successful anti-terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

What is a greater worry now is not whether they will catch anyone - which is pretty unlikely -- but how they will leak the vast amounts of personal data which they have accumulated.

As Gmail said recently - something along the lines of "if you use gmail you can expect to have your emails scanned". At least they were up-front enough to actually say it......

Edited August 21, 2013 by jpinx

[7by7]

Well, in this topic I am being accused of supporting Fascism.

In another I have been accused of being a wishy washy liberal.

In others I have been accused of being an apologist for Islamic terrorists.

I must be doing something right!

[jpinx]

Well, in this topic I am being accused of supporting Fascism.

In another I have been accused of being a wishy washy liberal.

In others I have been accused of being an apologist for Islamic terrorists.

I must be doing something right!

A man for all seasons !!

[mania]

Well, in this topic I am being accused of supporting Fascism.

In another I have been accused of being a wishy washy liberal.

In others I have been accused of being an apologist for Islamic terrorists.

I must be doing something right!

No need to turn on the drama

In my post I said if you or anyone else wants to give up their rights

that is your choice...go for it. It is your right no pun intended

I also never called you a fascist I asked you to look at how Fascism gets

a foothold in a country.

When I earlier asked you if you thought the Germans, Italians or Japanese citizens were stupid

I meant that to show how things can be slipped into place. Even on intelligent citizens

I truly believe if asked none of the folks of those countries would have called themselves fascist

or openly admit what they ended up with during their dark times was what they were working towards.

No instead they were duped into it with fear mongering.

I think I have said what I needed to in order to answer your questions.

At no time do I demand anyone to act a certain way.

I only ask that others might understand why Americans in general want to uphold & protect their

Constitution & their Constitutional rights

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[7by7]

We will, of course, never know what acts of terrorism, or other crimes, have been prevented by the surveillance techniques which some object to so much.

Those techniques and the information vital to the public's safety which they uncover must be kept secret; any fool knows that. To bring them into the public domain using the excuse of press freedom is, as Publicus says, giving that information directly to the terrorists.

After 9/11, after 7/7 people were highly critical of both the US and UK governments for not finding out about the attacks in advance and stopping those atrocities.

Many of those same people are now critical of the surveillance techniques now being used in the effort to prevent such atrocities happening again.

If governments do nothing they are accused of negligence; if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

From a UK perspective - this should give you some idea about the likelyhood of successful anti-terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

What is a greater worry now is not whether they will catch anyone - which is pretty unlikely -- but how they will leak the vast amounts of personal data which they have accumulated.

As Gmail said recently - something along the lines of "if you use gmail you can expect to have your emails scanned". At least they were up-front enough to actually say it......

How the NSA’s High-Tech Surveillance Helped Europeans Catch Terrorists shows that whilst it is not the be all and end all, it is a valuable tool.

What vast amounts of personal data, and why would 'they' leak it?

The only people doing any leaking are Snowden and Greenwald!

[mania]

The only people doing any leaking are Snowden and Greenwald!

Nice spin but untrue

What Snowden revealed was the fact that laws were being broken by the NSA

That is not leaking that is usually called police work, investigating, protecting, upholding etc.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[jpinx]

A leak is - by definition - accidental, and there have been plenty of cases of intrusions into the most secure of governmental computerised systems. You're a self-confessed fascist and loony liberal .. goodness knows who is reading your emails right now Expect a knock on your door by men in black suits wearing sunglasses

Edited to add.... the shorter one is me

Given the very short time between my posting the link and your reply - I assume you didn't actually read it

Please do -- it might enlighten and entertain you

Edited August 21, 2013 by jpinx

[7by7]

I only ask that others might understand why American in general want to uphold & protect their

Constitution & their Constitutional rights

Which is what this system is designed to do!

But it seems that you would prefer it be scrapped and those who wish to destroy your way of life be allowed to simply get on with it.

[7by7]

The only people doing any leaking are Snowden and Greenwald!

Nice spin but untrue

What Snowden revealed was the fact that laws were being broken by the NSA

That is not leaking that is usually called police work, investigating, protecting, upholding etc.

I refer you to Publicus's posts on the matter of what laws Snowden has broken.

[mania]

I only ask that others might understand why American in general want to uphold & protect their

Constitution & their Constitutional rights

Which is what this system is designed to do!

But it seems that you would prefer it be scrapped and those who wish to destroy your way of life be allowed to simply get on with it.

There is that fear mongering I spoke of earlier

You really should consider stepping away from the shadowy figures

koolaid punchbowl

If they have a need for such tools AGAIN there are lawful avenues for

them to approach. It does not take long & they have been at it for over a decade for gawds sake.

Way more than enough time to follow proper channels

But again they know as I do that they will be DENIED so instead break the law themselves

under the guise of protecting it

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[7by7]

Given the very short time between my posting the link and your reply - I assume you didn't actually read it

Please do -- it might enlighten and entertain you

12 minutes?

As I have for a long time been able to read without moving my lips, I didn't need 12 minutes to read it.

Entertaining? Yes.

Enlightening? No; it is just one person's opinion; as are your posts, my posts and all others here.

Now, perhaps you should read my link.

[jpinx]

7by7 linked to a favourable report written by this guy

http://www.propublica.org/site/author/sebastian_rotella

from which I quote....

He served most recently as a national security correspondent in Washington, D.C

So he is - in effect - paid to promote NSA's work ...

[sustento]

We will, of course, never know what acts of terrorism, or other crimes, have been prevented by the surveillance techniques which some object to so much.

Those techniques and the information vital to the public's safety which they uncover must be kept secret; any fool knows that. To bring them into the public domain using the excuse of press freedom is, as Publicus says, giving that information directly to the terrorists.

After 9/11, after 7/7 people were highly critical of both the US and UK governments for not finding out about the attacks in advance and stopping those atrocities.

Many of those same people are now critical of the surveillance techniques now being used in the effort to prevent such atrocities happening again.

If governments do nothing they are accused of negligence; if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

From a UK perspective - this should give you some idea about the likelyhood of successful anti-terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

That is the funniest thing I have read in years. Thank you

[manarak]

We will, of course, never know what acts of terrorism, or other crimes, have been prevented by the surveillance techniques which some object to so much.

Those techniques and the information vital to the public's safety which they uncover must be kept secret; any fool knows that. To bring them into the public domain using the excuse of press freedom is, as Publicus says, giving that information directly to the terrorists.

After 9/11, after 7/7 people were highly critical of both the US and UK governments for not finding out about the attacks in advance and stopping those atrocities.

Many of those same people are now critical of the surveillance techniques now being used in the effort to prevent such atrocities happening again.

If governments do nothing they are accused of negligence; if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

From a UK perspective - this should give you some idea about the likelyhood of successful anti-terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

What is a greater worry now is not whether they will catch anyone - which is pretty unlikely -- but how they will leak the vast amounts of personal data which they have accumulated.

As Gmail said recently - something along the lines of "if you use gmail you can expect to have your emails scanned". At least they were up-front enough to actually say it......

How the NSA’s High-Tech Surveillance Helped Europeans Catch Terrorists shows that whilst it is not the be all and end all, it is a valuable tool.

What vast amounts of personal data, and why would 'they' leak it?

The only people doing any leaking are Snowden and Greenwald!

A good article, I hope we will see more of the kind!

The crucial point is really that the obtained information never leaves the circles of intelligence and counterterrorism and that only data pertaining to terrorism or national security can be stored.

It has been reported earlier that data from NSA has been forwarded to DEA and IRS

[7by7]

Mania,

As far as I can see from what I have read, the only illegal activity the NSA have been accused of is recording conversations which took place solely within the USA.

Which they have denied doing.

But I may have missed something; I have obviously not devoted as much study to this as you. So please enlighten me: exactly what other illegal activities has the NSA been accused of?

Direct answer this time, if you'd be so kind.

[jpinx]

We will, of course, never know what acts of terrorism, or other crimes, have been prevented by the surveillance techniques which some object to so much.

Those techniques and the information vital to the public's safety which they uncover must be kept secret; any fool knows that. To bring them into the public domain using the excuse of press freedom is, as Publicus says, giving that information directly to the terrorists.

After 9/11, after 7/7 people were highly critical of both the US and UK governments for not finding out about the attacks in advance and stopping those atrocities.

Many of those same people are now critical of the surveillance techniques now being used in the effort to prevent such atrocities happening again.

If governments do nothing they are accused of negligence; if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

From a UK perspective - this should give you some idea about the likelyhood of successful anti-terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

That is the funniest thing I have read in years. Thank you

My pleasure Thanks for reading it, which is more than 7by7 did I think you will concur that it is not possible to read the whole of that article and post other comments to TV all within 7 minutes.....

Whereas -- the linked article written to support NSA only took a couple of minutes to read. That certainly says a lot about the amount of information actually in there........

[jpinx]

Mania,

As far as I can see from what I have read, the only illegal activity the NSA have been accused of is recording conversations which took place solely within the USA.

Which they have denied doing.

But I may have missed something; I have obviously not devoted as much study to this as you. So please enlighten me: exactly what other illegal activities has the NSA been accused of?

Direct answer this time, if you'd be so kind.

Maybe you should direct that question at Merkel and others who expressed grave concerns that USA was breaking laws in EU -- just one example.

[7by7]

7by7 linked to a favourable report written by this guy

http://www.propublica.org/site/author/sebastian_rotella

from which I quote....

He served most recently as a national security correspondent in Washington, D.C

So he is - in effect - paid to promote NSA's work ...

How so?

Correspondent in this sense means a journalist specialising in one location or area; not a paid advocate for an organisation!

I wont correct your maths, but do feel miffed that you are calling me a liar.

Edited August 21, 2013 by 7by7

[mania]

Mania,

As far as I can see from what I have read, the only illegal activity the NSA have been accused of is recording conversations which took place solely within the USA.

Which they have denied doing.

But I may have missed something; I have obviously not devoted as much study to this as you. So please enlighten me: exactly what other illegal activities has the NSA been accused of?

Direct answer this time, if you'd be so kind.

You know you basically want to dance about but

If your really interested go & read.

Here a Link for you

You make it sound like just breaking the 4th amendment is no biggie & want to know if there is more?

Really??

[7by7]

Really.

BTW; do you know the meaning of the word "unreasonable?"

Your fourth amendment prevents unreasonable searches etc., not all.

You have plenty of time to come up with an answer; I'm off for the day.

Edited August 21, 2013 by 7by7

[FDog]

Really.

BTW; do you know the meaning of the word "unreasonable?"

Your fourth amendment prevents unreasonable searches etc., not all.

You have plenty of time to come up with an answer; I'm off for the day.

I would think that the NSA intercepting your email to your wife saying you are taking little Johnny to basketball to be unreasonable.

But they are intercepting it.

[chuckd]

From the quoted post...

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

Actually the real quote was..."Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". .....................

Apologies for posting the more well known version of the maxim; glad you have had the satisfaction of correcting me.

It gave me no satisfaction...until you felt forced to defend yourself.

[mania]

You have plenty of time to come up with an answer; I'm off for the day.

You are operating under the false assumption I am here to convert you ? Educate you?

Neither is true

I have written quite a few posts tonight in response to your questions

If by reading those posts you do not understand where folks are coming from in asking that

the NSA follow the rule of law. What more can be said?

Or if you do not think the examples I gave of how countries fell into dark periods & later wondered how & why

Then really what more can be said? You are entitled to give up what ever you want to.

enjoy your day off as it is night here & time for bed

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[mania]

Really.

BTW; do you know the meaning of the word "unreasonable?"

Your fourth amendment prevents unreasonable searches etc., not all.

You have plenty of time to come up with an answer; I'm off for the day.

I would think that the NSA intercepting your email to your wife saying you are taking little Johnny to basketball to be unreasonable.

But they are intercepting it.

Normally most folks would feel the shotgun approach of considering every US citizen ( as well as a few other countries citizens )

all guilty until proven innocent is a bit unreasonable.

Perhaps unreasonable is the wrong word? Maybe drunk? Drunk with ill gotten power is more appropriate I think

[jpinx]

7by7 linked to a favourable report written by this guy

http://www.propublica.org/site/author/sebastian_rotella

from which I quote....

He served most recently as a national security correspondent in Washington, D.C

So he is - in effect - paid to promote NSA's work ...

How so?

Correspondent in this sense means a journalist specialising in one location or area; not a paid advocate for an organisation!

I wont correct your maths, but do feel miffed that you are calling me a liar.

I am sure you are familiar with the old adage about He who pays the piper calls the tune

Don't be miffed - it'd be no fun if we all agreed about everything

Good night all.........

[Publicus]

7by7 linked to a favourable report written by this guy

http://www.propublica.org/site/author/sebastian_rotella

from which I quote....

He served most recently as a national security correspondent in Washington, D.C

So he is - in effect - paid to promote NSA's work ...

That's quite a leap of logic and reasoning, not to mention being cynical.

Not credible unless there's a preponderance of evidence.

A little less of Joe McCarthy here please, thank you.

[Publicus]

Mania,

As far as I can see from what I have read, the only illegal activity the NSA have been accused of is recording conversations which took place solely within the USA.

Which they have denied doing.

But I may have missed something; I have obviously not devoted as much study to this as you. So please enlighten me: exactly what other illegal activities has the NSA been accused of?

Direct answer this time, if you'd be so kind.

Maybe you should direct that question at Merkel and others who expressed grave concerns that USA was breaking laws in EU -- just one example.

Circuitous reply.

It has the word "direct" in it, but that doesn't save it.

[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.

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).

Miranda has now been described by Jeffrey Toobin as the equivalent of a drug mule.

Asked if he thought the British were right to detain Miranda, Toobin said, "I sure do."

"I don't want to be unkind, but he was a mule," he said. "He was given something, he didn't know what it was, from one person to pass to another at the other end of an airport. Our prisons are full of drug mules."

Toobin is regularly accused of being a leftwing liberal. I have also been accused in TVF of being a leftie commie as well. Here's what you need to understand instead of trying to label people, and again I quote legal analyst Toobin;

"the word journalism is not magical immunity sauce that you can put on anything and eliminate any sort of liability."

Miranda was a foreign national transiting the UK. As such, he was subject to the laws that allow such visitors to be searched.

[Richard W]

Miranda was a foreign national transiting the UK. As such, he was subject to the laws that allow such visitors to be searched.

But he was not detained under any applicable law. He was detained under an inapplicable anti-terrorism law. The abuse of anti-terrorism laws is what the fuss should be about.