On Sunday Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian, who played a large role in helping NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leak allegations of a massive U.S. government domestic surveillance program, found out his partner David Miranda was detained by British authorities “under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000.”
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.
Greenwald went on to note the detention of his partner under British anti-terrorism laws seems to be nothing more than a clear attempt to intimidate him for his role in the Snowden whistleblowing, a point that Andrew Sullivan agrees with.
I have seen nothing anywhere that could even connect his spouse to such nefarious contacts. Unless Glenn is some kind of super-al-Qaeda mole, he has none to my knowledge and to suspect him of any is so close to unreasonable it qualifies as absurd. The idea that David may fomenting terrorism is even more ludicrous.
And yet they held him for three hours before informing his spouse and another six hours thereafter. I can see no reason for those extra six hours (or for that matter the entire nine hours) than brute psychological intimidation of the press, by attacking their families.
More to the point, although David was released, his entire digital library was confiscated – including his laptop and phone. So any journalist passing through London’s Heathrow has now been warned: do not take any documents with you. Britain is now a police state when it comes to journalists, just like Russia is.
In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.
plink, plink, plink…. and the sound of a thousand Emoprog aneurysms echo throughout the blogosphere.
‘Cause, gosh. Doesn’t it come as such a surprise that the British government would detain a recipient of stolen property? Property of such an insignificant nature.
Wait for the thus far established pattern to play out: Greenwald squawks, Details Greenwald omits are revealed from journalists actually practicing investigative journalism, Greenwald discredited, Greenwald continues to squawk unable to defend his position, Emoprogs bellow louder and more senselessly, ignore objective reality, ignore domestic priorities, and ignore the world stage. So the cycle repeats…
What an attack on press freedom. Miranda isn’t a journalist, therefore he’s entitled to no journalistic “immunity.” Poitras isn’t a journalist. For that matter Greenwald isn’t a journalist. Contrary to his assertion, he hasn’t printed truths. Oh what was that? The Guardian funded Miranda’s visit to Berlin with Laura Poitras? Funny, the article Greenwald links to prefaced with FULL STORY HERE didn’t mention that. Gosh, they’ve finally amended, but failed to note their addition.
Sullivan and Amnesty International should be ashamed of themselves for their mischaracterization. There was nothing random about stopping Miranda and questioning him pointedly about sensitive matters pertaining to GCHQ or any other Snowden-Greenwald matter under consideration. Perhaps Amnesty should recall what random detention intended to intimidate actually looks like – for instance when the UK not so long ago routinely and randomly detained suspected LGBT passengers, detained them for as long or longer than Miranda was detained, strip searched them, thoroughly inspected all personal items they carried, and deported them. The UK didn’t detain Miranda because they suspected he was an Al Qaeda terrorist. The UK didn’t harass Miranda because he was Greenwald’s partner. Miranda wasn’t detained for who he is. He was detained for what he had done. And Sullivan should spend some time reading about the Russian press before he draws ridiculous parallels like he has here. Sullivan’s mischaracterization is an insult to journalists world wide who are ACTUALLY persecuted and viciously silenced.
The British government didn’t attack or intimidate anyone. There’s no seriously radical escalation of anything. The UK did precisely what it is governments are supposed to do when confronted with criminal activity. And for someone who has traveled as extensively as Greenwald has and has written on national security issues as extensively as he has, but still isn’t aware of what an international hub means, then either he’s deliberately obfuscating or his perspective is less than worthless. He then doesn’t have perspective; he’s only bloviating.
In more predictable irony – after launching mafia analogies at the governments he currently most despises, he issues a revenge threat against said one said government which looks curiously similar to a vendetta. How sublimely tribal. Graymail sure to come.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE97I0LZ20130819?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Did you just call me an “Emoprog?”
No, I didn’t just call you an Emoprog. I said, “plink, plink, plink…. and the Emprog aneurysms echo throughout the blogosphere.” Greenwald’s hysteria will catch on, and as it always does, blaze a trail of pitiful fury and unsound outrage behind it. Not too dissimilar from what we’ve seen with the IRS and Benghazi. It’s the same pattern. When the mitigating details emerge, the rage and the unfounded conclusions it fostered will remain. I don’t see pitiful fury in your post. If you are an Emoprog, you’ve disguised it well.
Funny thing is, I actually had to look up “emoprog” to see what it meant, and after reading the explanation, I don’t really think it applies to me.
Agreed. I don’t think Emoprog applies to you, Zach.
Very telling and magnanimous of you, with your introduction of a derogatory personal attack term to the cloud future discussion and give more opportunity to abusively dismiss any real analytics from those you might disagree with, PJ.
When you are finished circling the wagons, here’s a friendly tip. You are supposed to stay inside the circle and aim outwardly, not the other way around.
As you don’t seem to know, this partner was being used to shuttle top secret info to and from a cohort of greenwald’s via commercial air, as the Guardian conveniently left out of it’s story and purest of the pure glen hasn’t mentioned. If this is true, the confiscation of “his entire digital library” was 100% correct. These guys seem to think top secrets should be open to all. They should not.
Everything our government does in our name is top secret, but everything you or I do is fair game for who knows what kind of repression, as we are illegally spied on by our own government and lied to about it happening and at what scale it is happening?
Last week’s admission by our national leadership that taxpayer funds are being spent to create media propaganda to lie to us, was a “top secret,” until this story broke. Don’t for a moment think that any USian “enemies,” (Russia, China, or the usual WOTforever suspects) learned much of anything that they didn’t already know about the US in this latest round of patriotic government watchdog activism. The furor is over the fact that we the people, who apparently are the real enemies of our own, “government,” are the ones who have learned somewhat more about the truth of what is being done to us that we suspected, but didn’t know for certain before.
In case you don’t get it, charges of aiding the enemy, for aiding us in understanding what our government is really about, defines you and me as the real enemy of our own elected government.
Sounds like you are OK with that. Hope I am wrong.
The Tinfoil Hat Brigade salutes you, NQ. You’ve earned your cranial aluminum – wear it well, it’s the only thing keeping the government from getting at you. You’ll be reassured to know that your new mercurial chapeau deters Yetis too.
Already discussed your pathetic reasoning and tactics above @12:36. No need to waste any more of my lunch hour elaborating.
NQ,
A few friendly tips to repay you in kind – You might want to burnish your 13th Element Stetson so it stays shiny and reflective. Perhaps you shouldn’t have wasted your time on me, and perhaps you shouldn’t have wasted everyone’s time by regurgitating Greenwald’s grand narrative. Perhaps you should have addressed the matter at hand – Greenwald’s Miserable Miranda Mayhem. You didn’t. Who’s clouding whom?
Any irrationally derived diatribe will be met with the mockery it deserves. Make no mistake about that. You would do well to hone up on Ad Hominem versus rational critique. Since you appear incapable of distinguishing between them, I suggest you consult an elementary text. It’s pretty basic. But here’s an eloquent guide to get you started:
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
That’s Thomas Paine.
I repeat: Irrationalism will be met with the mockery it deserves. No false equivalencies will be brooked for the sake of legitimizing an illegitimate critique. If you apply reason you will be taken seriously. If you apply irrationalism and propagandist method you will not. There’s nothing cloudy about it.
If you are prepared to RATIONALLY discuss the topic at hand which is Greenwald’s Miranda media fiasco, please do. You won’t be mocked. Go full tilt. Thus far you’ve only upchucked Greenwald’s upchuck – need you be reminded that every “top secret” “revelatory” story he’s published thus far is debunked by techies and true investigative journalists or was already long known. Your narrative is unsound, irrational, and it doesn’t attend to the matter at hand. Who’s clouding whom? You undermine every democratic-republican principle this nation was founded upon when you push Greenwald’s narrative. Have a crack at the latest Greenwald “bombshell” with Miranda. Defend it. Proceed full tilt. But here’s a friendly tip… if you do go ahead full tilt beware the earth’s edge. It’s a steep drop. Trending Central has a rational course for you to begin your journey – who knows maybe gravity will kick in and your tinfoil hat might gently float away….
http://www.trendingcentral.com/the-smears-of-glenn-greenwald-and-the-guardian/
My apologies for an analogy that was apparently too diffuse to easily comprehend, divide and conquer more clear for you than the circular firing squad with circle the wagons?
Attack me all you want, presume that I am not aware of actual or potential GG self promotion or lack of insight into the content of the link which you provided which puts Miranda as a working journalist partner in the scheme of things. but the larger picture of government prosecution and intimidation of the press has not been lost on me. So government intimidation of a free press is OK with you?
Demean me and not what I attempted to communicate. That was not lost on me from the either. Thanks a million, as Scotty would say.
Again, when you are ready to rationally discuss the matter at hand, please do. When you care to explicate “lack of insight,” please do.
Thanks for defining who is rational or not, PJ. Authoritarian is as authoritarian does. Explicate for all of us readers here, one thing from the many allusions in your 3:47 PM screed that anyone would be able to begin to rationally respond to. For example, please elaborate on your definition of GG’s, “media fiasco.”
I initially responded to someone who was not you, you butted in with derisive personal characterizations of me, name calling if you will, nothing explicative from you as you seem to be demanding of me. I have not attempted to demean or insult anyone as you did to me with your first comment at 12:25 pm.
Your introduction to some readers here, of a childish, demeaning and derogatorily focused pejorative began this little exchange between us. Own up to it. At this point, tis not my problem.
Rationality is objective. Logic is objective. Neither of these are subjective matters that I created. If you require their definitions or if you require instruction on how to use these to effect rational discourse you’ll have to do the legwork yourself.
You chose to post on a public forum, and you instantiated irrational propagandism. So in the most honest sense it is you has butted in. If you are here to participate in honest discourse, then by all means, go ahead. But if you are here to peddle nonsense and you expect acquiescence, you are quite mistaken.
I reiterate what I said earlier – perhaps you shouldn’t waste your time on me. If you are here with honest intentions for rational discourse then proceed. No one is stopping you. I have not obstructed you. You can blame me all you want for your inadequacies, but the fact remains you haven’t yet offered any rational critique on the matter at hand. The fact is you are more concerned with me than with the matter at hand. I think it is you who needs to own up.
I will defend every word I write. Your criticism of me is duly noted by all. Now, are you prepared to intelligently and rationally discuss the matter at hand? If you are, please do.
Morning PJ,
I appreciate the irony in a lecture on objectivity and rationality, for sure, especially coming from you, who began a critique of my 12:20 comment yesterday with an abusive, derogatory characterization of my personality, rather than addressing what I said.
My initial comment yesterday spoke to recently further confirmed (by Snowden) loss of our rights to privacy, hinted at unreasonable and illegal over-classification of government activities as top secret and suggested that the uproar (coming from Obomba LLC, corporate MSM lapdogs) was less about any real national security damage to our country and more about the emperor’s (NSA, Obomba, et al) embarrassment, being shown again as definitely having no clothes. I do see that I could have stated that more clearly to begin with.
Though my initial comment was not directly on the topic of the post, I almost got sucked in to your demanding that I defend Greenwald and Miranda or whatever it was that you were demanding that I defend, which was, I see now, merely an apparent attempt to change the conversation from my mention of your openly disrespectful personal attack. Conclusion, I must have touched a nerve with the truth.
Reading this blog over time, my recognition of what I will define as your clear pattern of badgering and bullying and occasionally disrespectfully characterizing people in a demeaning manner to attempt to one up them with what it appears you believe is your superior intellect and knowledge is simply something that myself and others visiting here will undoubtedly continue to encounter.
NQ,
Again, you are free to sputter your paranoia screeds as many times as you find necessary. Repeating it doesn’t magically make it rational. Greenwald and Snowden have been throughly debunked. But, the fact remains – you have not engaged in rational discussion on the matter at hand. I suggested you defend Greenwald on the Miranda matter because it seemed a position you would likely be familiar. Apparently not. You needn’t defend Greenwald. You can oppose Greenwald on the Miranda matter. You have done neither.
You can interpret my arrogance any way you choose. I have never insisted I wasn’t arrogant. Nor ever will I. You can interpret insistence for baseline rationality as bullying and badgering if you choose. You can choose to be offended at biting sarcasm if you are unable to distinguish between content and tone. Or subtlety and nuance for that matter. But the fact remains, you have not engaged in rational discourse. If you feel demeaned by being called out on it, there’s not much I can do. Sure, I needn’t taunt you, but as I said, irrationalism will be met with the mockery it deserves. Again, there’s nothing reasonable about accepting a false equivalency standard. Any more than it would be reasonable to accept teaching creationism in a public science school course to ensure a “balanced curriculum.”
I reiterate – if you are prepared to rationally and intelligently discuss the matter at hand, please do. Or maybe we can spend some more time just talking about me.
Oh, the company I keep.
http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/user/248602/tmw2013-08-07colorlarge.jpg
Bump.
Oh, the company you keep, indeed.
http://joshuafoust.com/pathetic-slap-from-lying-bully/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoshuaFoust+%28Joshua+Foust%29
Funny, how saturated with irony. Your link perpetuates Greenwald’s grand narrative. It doesn’t address the post at hand. Who could have predicted that?
http://thisweekinblackness.com/2013/08/23/the-guardian-glenn-greenwald-is-lying-david-miranda/
Heads up, NQ. A few headlines to look forward to:
“How Glenn Greenwald Killed Left Wing Media”
“Snowden’s New Gig: Cyber-Architect for BRICS Bank and BRICS Virtual Secretariat”
“Guardian Greenwalled: Icon of British Media Defunct”
Until those headlines break, here are a few from the blogosphere to peruse:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/08/greenwald-jumps-sharknado.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FlpjFg+%28Smartypants%29
You won’t want to skip this one.
http://joshuafoust.com/the-least-credible-accusation/
This is just thrown in there.
http://unfashionista.com/2013/08/22/david-miranda-snowdens-mule-and-physical-data/
Are you yet prepared for rational discussion rather than regurgitating Greenwald’s narrative?
Well, during the interval, keep fast your boron bonnet. Lucky for you, it is remarkably non-corrosive. But you might have issues with its melting point should your outrage continue to peak.
FREEEEDUMMMBB!!!! Seriously though. He was transporting stolen documents. Greenwald is not the droid you are looking for.
30 Helens agree. Mikey’s got the clever goin’ on. Great comment, M. 🙂
Mikey,
If he had stolen docs, why did they let him go?
Because they were encrypted.
Proud of the British for taking on Murdock in the wire-taping probe and winning. Doubt if anybody in American politics would have stood up in similar manner to our media establishment. P.J., I wish I had known of “Emoprog” when I tried to stand up for the Zimmerman Jury.