Miranda detention facts:

[ProSense]

Britain doesn't have a first amendment, which makes it a less than ideal environment for journalist.

David Miranda isn't a U.S. citizen.

The United Kingdom is not the United States.

Miranda is considering legal action against the British government.

Summary: This incident has nothing to do with the U.S. government.

Of course, the focus is now on Britain.

[msongs]

1. nothing to do with the US government = laugh of the day :-) nt

[ProSense]

3. Elaborate.

Enlighten.

[NuclearDem]

31. Elegant.

Elephant.

[ProSense]

58. You can spell!

Good for you!!!

[tk2kewl]

113. LOL!

nothing to see here, move along...

[burnodo]

2. if that's the case

why did officials in Britain stop this guy?

[ProSense]

6. ?

"if that's the case why did officials in Britain stop this guy? "

Because they decided to do so? I mean, Britain can do whatever it wants to. Do you think the United States controls the British government?

Britain is going to have deal with the legal challenge.

[burnodo]

12. Because they decided to do so

Based on what? Was he on a terrorist watch list? He was detained under a terrorism statute.

"Do you think the United States controls the British government?"

Controls? Perhaps not, but you seem to forget the history of the Iraq War.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

20. Yes, controlling and having a lot of influence are two different things. nt

[burnodo]

25. Yes

but that doesnt mean either is completely black and white

[ProSense]

23. The U.S. government isn't the British government.

No matter how hard you try to imagine the two are one, they are separate countries with different laws.

[burnodo]

27. You didnt answer anything I addressed specifically

[ProSense]

39. "Based on" they wanted to do it.

I mean, whatever it was "based on," it's still a British action.

Still, if you want the British government's rationale, you can find it here:

David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625#TWEET862073

[burnodo]

43. now you're echoing government talking points

And they're not even Democrats!

[ProSense]

54. What?

"now you're echoing government talking points And they're not even Democrats!"

You're not interested in why the British government claims it did what it did?

You want to make it up or have me make it up?

Are you going to deny that the British government did this?

I mean, you don't have to believe the reason, but you cannot deny that it was the British government that decided to carry out the action.

[burnodo]

61. I can deny they made the decision on their own

[ProSense]

68. Then why would the British government have to "notify" and give a "heads up?

Again, there are facts, and then there is speculation.

The fact is that Britain carried out the action, and the related issues are its problems.

[burnodo]

70. umm, you directly contradict yourself in every other post

The British government made the decision to detain Miranda based on what the US told them to do. Umm...I guess I can't figure out why you can't put that together.

[ProSense]

73. No, and you can continue speculating. n/t

[lumpy]

103. Ridculous ..you're way over your head

n

[freshwest]

108. Not 'told them to do' like they're lapdogs. The treaty sharing info goes back to WW2.

Last edited Sun Aug 25, 2013, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)

The entire Anglosphere has been sharing a lot of information offically on the same basis it did during that war. Below is a post by Devon Rex,although most of us knew this for years, just not this well laid out:

I'll spell it out: UKUSA. It's the SIGINT Intelligence Agreement. BRUSA.

Might as well be signed in blood.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement (UKUSA, /juːkuːˈsɑː/ ew-koo-sah) is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance of intelligence operations is also known as Five Eyes (FVEY). It was first signed in March 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States and later extended to encompass the three Commonwealth realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The UKUSA Agreement was a follow-up of the 1943 BRUSA Agreement, the World War II agreement on cooperation over intelligence matters. This was a secret treaty, allegedly so secret that it was kept secret from the Australian Prime Ministers until 1973.

The agreement established an alliance of five English-speaking countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence, especially signals intelligence. It formalized the intelligence sharing agreement in the Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, before the entry of the U.S. into the conflict.

History

The agreement originated from a ten-page British–U.S. Communication Intelligence Agreement, also known as BRUSA, that connected the signal intercept networks of the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) at the beginning of the Cold War. The document was signed on March 5, 1946 by Colonel Patrick Marr-Johnson for the U.K.'s London Signals Intelligence Board and Lieutenant General Hoyt Vandenberg for the U.S. State–Army–Navy Communication Intelligence Board. Although the original agreement states that the exchange would not be "prejudicial to national interests", the United States often blocked information sharing from Commonwealth countries. The full text of the agreement was released to the public on June 25, 2010.

Under the agreement, the GCHQ and the NSA shared intelligence on the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and several eastern European countries (known as Exotics). The network was expanded in the 1960s into the Echelon collection and analysis network.

In July 2013, as part of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, it emerged that the NSA is paying GCHQ for its services, with at least £100 million of payments made between 2010–13.

Collection mechanisms

The UKUSA alliance is often associated with the ECHELON system; however, processed intelligence is reliant on multiple sources of information and the intelligence shared is not restricted to signals intelligence.

The "Five Eyes" in question are –

USA – National Security Agency
United Kingdom – Government Communications Headquarters
Canada – Communications Security Establishment
Australia – Defence Signals Directorate
New Zealand – Government Communications Security Bureau

Global coverage

Each member of the UKUSA alliance is officially assigned lead responsibility for intelligence collection and analysis in different parts of the globe.

Australia

Australia hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia, and southern China.

Canada

Formerly the northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite, radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and non-aligned paramilitary groups in the region.

New Zealand

The Waihopai Valley Facility—base of the New Zealand branch of the ECHELON Program.
New Zealand is responsible for the western Pacific. Listening posts in the South Island at Waihopai Valley just south-west of Blenheim, and on the North Island at Tangimoana. The Anti-Bases Campaign holds regular protests in order to have the listening posts closed down.

United Kingdom
Europe, Africa, and European Russia.

United States

Monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic Russia, and northern China.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023492002#post7

Devon Rex writes, 'Might as well be signed in blood.' That is true. Millions of people died in that war and that's still taken seriously. True, it was before most of us were born but it formed the world we live in.

It's NOT a secret and it was not forced, it was for mutual protection in a world being overrun by fascists, who were not kidding one damned bit. If a new generation wants to break the ties of the USA to the Anglosphere, just go for it.

The information is the legal property of all of those nations, and the agreement was literally written in the blood of millions of combatants and civilians. It was a period of total warfare before the Gevena accords as they stand now and the Nuremberg tribunal.

That blood has long since dried for some and may be forgotten, but for others, it has meaning that guides how they live their lives.

I don't see that anyone is offering a solution except by legislation restricting governments from taking private information as they have in Europe. That is the real worry here. What goes between those governments is not the same as that concern.

But there is no legislation saying it is proper to take information from any of those treaty partners. And no calls to revoke the treaty that was signed to make it Britain's business so many years ago. Most of us dream of a world without any enemies and I think many of us are in vigorous debate over who the enemy du jour is as we see things today.

[Cha]

83. When their argument has no merit.. accuse you of

echoing US talking points. rofl.

"bad US.. don't care it was UK.. bad USA.. bad Obama " have I covered it?

[lumpy]

102. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH what a laugh

n

[KittyWampus]

104. Because Snowden dumped on the UK's surveillance programs too. PAY ATTENTION.

[Arctic Dave]

4. OMG! Tell us more!

[Safetykitten]

93. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. And leaking about the NSA is not a crime against Britain.

[ProSense]

9. Did you

"And leaking about the NSA is not a crime against Britain."

...forget that Greenwald stated that he's now going to focus on the U.K.? He has information pertaining to the British government.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "Greenwald stated that he's NOW going to focus on the U.K.?"

So the UK pre-emptively detained someone who is not Greenwald over a crime not committed against the UK.

Keep bombing that village. You may yet be able to save it.

[ProSense]

17. He has already published information on the U.K. He said it will increase his focus. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. No, Miranda hasn't published anything on the UK.

[ProSense]

24. Miranda? What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. I presume you remember that the OP that you started was about Miranda being detained.

You can't use the publishing of articles about the NSA -- or even the UK -- as a justification for detaining someone who did not publish those materials. You know this but you play obtuse.

[ProSense]

55. Oh brother.

"I presume you remember that the OP that you started was about Miranda being detained.

You can't use the publishing of articles about the NSA -- or even the UK -- as a justification for detaining someone who did not publish those materials. You know this but you play obtuse."

I mean, did you forget your first comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023501805#post5

You're not serious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. You justify the detention of Miranda by citing the fact the UK has no 1A and

other UK based facts. I cited the fact the NSA is not a UK agency. That does nothing to change the fact that Miranda published nothing about the UK or anyone else.

Again, you play the deliberately obtuse.

[ProSense]

72. You shouldn't

You justify the detention of Miranda by citing the fact the UK has no 1A and

other UK based facts. I cited the fact the NSA is not a UK agency. That does nothing to change the fact that Miranda published nothing about the UK or anyone else.

Again, you play the deliberately obtuse.

...use the phrase "deliberately obtuse" because it seems like you're projecting. I mean, what the hell does "Miranda published nothing" have to do with anything?

I didn't claim he published anything. The fact is he was aiding Greenwald factored into the decision, which is why I mentioned the lack of First Amendment protections.

Mr Miranda's detention was part security service fishing trip, part police harassment exercise and part government warning signal to journalists and whistleblowers. It was an attempt to intimidate journalism in one of the zoned-off jurisdictional spaces where such a thing can happen without legal redress. It was done simply because it could be done – and doubtless because the Americans wanted it done – and for no other reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-schedule7-editorial

In this work he is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work. Greenwald has his plate full reading and analysing the Snowden material, writing, and handling media and social media requests from around the world. He can certainly use this back-up. That work is immensely complicated by the certainty that it would be highly unadvisable for Greenwald (or any other journalist) to regard any electronic means of communication as safe. The Guardian's work on the Snowden story has involved many individuals taking a huge number of flights in order to have face-to-face meetings. Not good for the environment, but increasingly the only way to operate. Soon we will be back to pen and paper.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters

[lumpy]

107. Was Miranda carrying/delivering stolen property ?

n

[burnodo]

14. He said that AFTER Miranda was detained

You just keep making shit up, don't you?

[ProSense]

19. You appear not to know what you're talking about. n/t

[burnodo]

30. and you do?

Greenwald talked about going after the UK BEFORE last weekend? (Other than their general complicity with US government criminality when it comes to spying?)

[ProSense]

56. Yes, google it. n/t

[JaneyVee]

7. Any minute now people will come on here and say its all the USAs fault, but

None of them will have a shred of evidence. Just mocking, condescending, passive aggressiveness. Watch it unfold.

[Cha]

85. Yeah, sure as shit. nm

[lumpy]

105. Yes, no evidence, little education on the subject, and clueless.

n

[uponit7771]

8. but....but.....the right leaning gov in Britain does what the left leaning gov in America wants it..

...do!!

[burnodo]

15. left leaning?

I mean...are you kidding?

[uponit7771]

16. yeah, you're right... far left leaning.... I was trying to be..............conservative :-)

[burnodo]

33. what in the hell are you talking about?

Barack Obama is right-of-center. The "party" is, at best, center-left. What "far left" is in control of any part of this country?

[uponit7771]

36. You forgot Bengaiz and Fast and Furious.....throw in Birth Certificate there somewhere too

...shit sounds ridiculous

[burnodo]

38. again, you need some sleep

Your English is really failing. I'm concerned about your welfare.

[NuclearDem]

50. WTF are you talking about?

[neverforget]

80. Just a way to smear anyone who disagrees with them by applying Issa's

witch-hunt to the Snowden/Greenwald/Paulbots/boxes/poledancers/black helicopter leftists/commie/fellow traveler.....you get the idea.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. your "left leaning" us government is to the right, politically, of the "right leaning" british

government.

[uponit7771]

37. Don't forget IRS scandal or something else inanely untrue

[burnodo]

41. I think the IRS "scandal" is bullshit

however, the IRS "scandal" is NOT the only question on the table

[Warren Stupidity]

42. you all aren't even putting up a good show anymore, this is no fun.

At least try to make a sensible argument.

[uponit7771]

44. BENGHAZI!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

47. been drinkin?

[NuclearDem]

51. Nah, just don't know what they're talking about

And lashing out at people who do.

[Cha]

88. but but but, you can't tell any snowden fans that

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)

the US Gov is left leaning! They like that ron paul loving libertarian who fancies Russia now. And that ass Assange who thinks only rand paul can save America. But, President Obama is evil and all bad and he doesn't do any good things at all@@@111!!!

The US is what they say the talking points are!!

They're so caught up in trying to blame America for every fuckng thing.. like if they skip over one thing.. their little world will blow up.

[lumpy]

106. Truly. I feel so sad about the ignorance and dishonor that exists in this country.

nn

[Marr]

10. "nothing to do with the US government". Oh, c'mon.

Do you really think anyone buys that? I doubt that even people you're typically aligned with know this has a lot to do with the UK's closest ally, the US. Our two countries work together very closely-- especially in intelligence.

[ProSense]

13. Huh?

"Do you really think anyone buys that?"

There is nothing to buy. The outrage seems to be that the U.S. didn't step in to tell the U.K. how to carry out its laws.

The issue is Britain's, the use of its law, and the lax protection it affords journalist (not that Miranda is a journalist, but there is the issue of the Guardian hard drive).

Wanting the U.S. to have stepped in to tell the British not to proceed, doesn't make it this country's issue.

[uponit7771]

18. People on the right claim Obama is a dictator in word and deed, don't understand this meme coming

...from the left too

[Andy823]

29. I think

The far right and the far left have done so far out there they have finally come together, and looks like they both share a dislike for the president. It is starting to be hard telling the difference between the two.

[Marr]

84. Seriously? You're going to sit there and claim that the Brits actions here had

"nothing to do with the US", and anyone who says otherwise is "far out there"?

Ridiculous.

[leftstreet]

21. I wonder why the UK gave the US a heads-up

[ProSense]

26. Why is that unusual?

It's still Britain's action.

[NuclearDem]

35. Let me rephrase that:

Since it was entirely a British matter with no relevance to the US government at all, why did the British give us a heads up?

[ProSense]

45. Wait,

"Since it was entirely a British matter with no relevance to the US government at all, why did the British give us a heads up?"

...what about a "heads up" changes the fact that this was a British action?

Heads up: The British government decided to do something and let the U.S. know.

[NuclearDem]

49. Then why even notify the US if it was just a British action?

And please, try to actually answer the question without simply rewording what I said with a question mark at the end.

[ProSense]

59. Because they wanted to.

"Then why even notify the US if it was just a British action?"

Do you understand that "notify" means that Britain decided to take the action?

Notifying the U.S. gov't doesn't change the fact that this was a British decision and action.

It also doesn't change the fact that Miranda is not a U.S. citizen, and that he is taking legal action against the British government for its action.

Those are the facts. Everything else is wishful thinking.

[progressoid]

94. Doncha know, the UK always lets the US know when they have detained a Brazilian citizen.

I bet they do that for anyone from any country that they detain.

And I'm sure we let them know anytime we detain someone from, say, Costa Rica. It's just a common courtesy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. Perhaps because he is married to an American citizen?

wouldn't that be the protocol if you are detaining someone based on suspicions of such high crimes? Just in case, wouldn't you like to know the whereabouts of said spouse?

[Warren Stupidity]

28. You know, this is a really half hearted effort on your part.

I get the feeling even you can't stand defending this crap.

[ProSense]

48. Well,

"You know, this is a really half hearted effort on your part.

I get the feeling even you can't stand defending this crap."

...I'm responding to a comments on the topic of the OP, and took the time to respond to this attempt to deflect.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. You are defending a chilling, heavy handed, authoritarian effort to suppress

freedom of the press. Why? Do you really have no limits?

[ProSense]

66. No,

"You are defending a chilling, heavy handed, authoritarian effort to suppress freedom of the press. Why? Do you really have no limits?"

...I'm stating that the action was carried out by the British government. Aside from the fact that they applied a law that wasn't intended for the purpose, you do know part of the problem is that there is no First Amendment protection in Britain, right?

[NuclearDem]

71. You do know the UK has a higher rating for press freedom from RWB than the United States, right?

[ProSense]

74. Well,

"You do know the UK has a higher rating for press freedom from RWB than the United States, right?"

...it's likely going to take a hit after this incident. Seems like you're trying to defend the British government.

<...>

"It was a rather bizarre situation in which I explained to them that there were other copies and, as with WikiLeaks, we weren't working in London alone so destroying a copy in London seemed to me a slightly pointless task that didn't take account of the way that digital information works these days," said Rusbridger.

"Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America, which has better laws to protect journalists, I saw no reason not to destroy this material ourselves rather than hand it back to the government."

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/20/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-nsa

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023498667

[NuclearDem]

75. No, just popping your little bullshit argument that a British First Amendment would solve everything

And if you've still got issues with reading comprehension when it comes to this topic, ask me for clarification. Don't start shoving fucking words into my mouth. It's disingenuous and maddening.

[ProSense]

77. I made no such assertion. You need to stop debating yourself.

"And if you've still got issues with reading comprehension when it comes to this topic, ask me for clarification. Don't start shoving fucking words into my mouth. It's disingenuous and maddening."

Please, don't try to blame me for the stuff coming out of your mouth. That's on you.

[NuclearDem]

79. Ugh, more disingenuous horseshit.

you do know part of the problem is that there is no First Amendment protection in Britain, right?

That look familiar?

It should. That was you.

My response was that the problem with Britain isn't its horrible press freedom laws, since they're consistently rated higher than those of the US. I'm not "defending the British government."

I know this is a pointless exercise to try to convince you of anything, but hell, I guess I just get off on the pain.

[ProSense]

89. No

Ugh, more disingenuous horseshit.

you do know part of the problem is that there is no First Amendment protection in Britain, right?


That look familiar?

It should. That was you.

My response was that the problem with Britain isn't its horrible press freedom laws, since they're consistently rated higher than those of the US. I'm not "defending the British government."

I know this is a pointless exercise to try to convince you of anything, but hell, I guess I just get off on the pain.

...that's a lack of comprehension about the point being made. I know what I said. The fact is he was aiding Greenwald factored into the decision, which is why I mentioned the lack of First Amendment protections.

Mr Miranda's detention was part security service fishing trip, part police harassment exercise and part government warning signal to journalists and whistleblowers. It was an attempt to intimidate journalism in one of the zoned-off jurisdictional spaces where such a thing can happen without legal redress. It was done simply because it could be done – and doubtless because the Americans wanted it done – and for no other reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-schedule7-editorial

In this work he is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work. Greenwald has his plate full reading and analysing the Snowden material, writing, and handling media and social media requests from around the world. He can certainly use this back-up. That work is immensely complicated by the certainty that it would be highly unadvisable for Greenwald (or any other journalist) to regard any electronic means of communication as safe. The Guardian's work on the Snowden story has involved many individuals taking a huge number of flights in order to have face-to-face meetings. Not good for the environment, but increasingly the only way to operate. Soon we will be back to pen and paper.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters

[Warren Stupidity]

112. "They applied a law that wasn't intended for the purpose" a fact we can agree on.

So you agree that this action by the British Government was a misuse of state power.
Do you think it was intentional or accidental?

[Paulie]

32. The poodle is well trained by now?

Knows where to pee and when to bite the postman.

A sad world indeed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. And so is The UK.

[dkf]

40. "But the "customer" the UK's GCHQ agency frets about most is the NSA"

But the "customer" the agency frets about most is the NSA. In numerous papers, GCHQ reveals its need to keep the Americans happy, and how it regards this as an overriding priority.

It is not hard to see why: the Guardian has discovered GCHQ receives tens of millions of pounds from the NSA every year, money it has come to rely upon to build and maintain its collecting and decoding capabilities. In turn, the US expects a service, and, potentially, access to a range of programmes, such as Tempora.

Those campaigners and academics who fear the agencies are too close, and suspect they do each other's "dirty work", will probably be alarmed by the explicit nature of the quid-pro-quo arrangements.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/gchq-spy-agency-nsa-snowden

[ProSense]

57. The British

clearly aren't happy.

David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625#TWEET862073

[dkf]

64. No they aren't because we are the customer of their intelligence product, the source of their $!!!

We don't need to tell them to leap. It's in their interest to do whatever we want.

We pay them to be our mule!! Oh the irony.

[ProSense]

67. So

"We don't need to tell them to leap. It's in their interest to do whatever we want. "

...the British has no interest in this, they're just puppets of the U.S. governemnt sitting around thinking about ways to please this country?

When the British government came under fire for the early reports, did that affect its interest?

[dkf]

69. Our interest enables their interest.

[Vinnie From Indy]

60. Detention Facts sounds like a band!

"Britain doesn't have a first amendment"

And, their money has funny colors and pictures of old ladies with crowns and stuff!

Cheers!

[Katashi_itto]

65. You have facts?

[Bonobo]

76. Plausible deniability.

It's not just for breakfast anymore.

[ProSense]

78. Explain what this issue has to do with the U.S. government.

Thanks in advance.

[Bonobo]

81. As I said.

It was handled so that the US could maintain distance from the action against Miranda, but the "courtesy call" shows us what the reality is.

He was intimidated with the tacit or overt consent of the US.

Is it a fact? No.

Is it reasonable conjecture? Of course.

[MFrohike]

82. A bit premature

I'd say your conclusion is a bit hasty. America's closest ally seized materials that presumably were stolen from its pre-eminent intelligence agency. It seems unbelievable that the US government is not involved. Not only that, it seems completely incompetent. Your closest ally gets your stuff back and you just lean back and watch it happen? Wouldn't that not only be incompetent but also in dereliction of your duty to protect those secrets? What's the point of multiple laws and penalties to protect your secrets if you're just going to kick back and let your allies worry about it?

The above is speculation, but it's reasonable speculation. Of course, it's equally possible the Brits got the word that Miranda was probably moving the materials and grabbed an opportunity to look over the treasure trove first. They told our government because they didn't have a choice. If you grab the spouse of the guy releasing your ally's secrets because you think he's carrying more of those secrets and you do it in public, you have to make the courtesy call. It's simply covering your own ass.

Anyway, those are just a couple of scenarios about what could have happened. In the second, there's less involvement by the US government but in neither is there no involvement. While I'll grant it's possible, under the premise that ANYTHING is possible, it's quite unlikely that the US government had no role at all in this situation.

[ProSense]

95. Really?

"I'd say your conclusion is a bit hasty."

Rachel Maddow did an entire segment about the heads up, and how the U.S. should have tried to stop it.

The fact that the U.S. was notified, given a heads up, means that Britain made the decision.

A British action on British soil using a British law, and a Brazilian citizen taking legal action against the British government has nothing to do with the U.S.

[MFrohike]

99. I should be more clear

In the scenario where the Brits jumped at a chance, US involvement is after the fact. I could completely accept that the initial impetus was on the Brits, but not that the US did not then get involved. I'd compare it to believing in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus has argument in favor of his existence at least in the cases of small children.

If my initial post was unclear on this point, that's my fault. If you're arguing that the US is not involved except for the notification, well, I hope that one works out for you.

[frazzled]

87. Not to mention ...

Nothing really happened to him, except that he was questioned and was delayed from his flight for 9 hours. To my knowledge he wasn't beaten or tortured; he wasn't sent to prison or disappeared or banished to a gulag. No one has said they threatened to kill his mother.

I do think they took his iPod away. We could buy him another with a quick fundraiser in a flash.

You know, a lot of people get detained in Britain (and in the US) who aren't released 9 hours later. For instance, people who get picked up and charged with a crime they did not commit and get sent to prison for decades before (if they're lucky) they are proved innocent. (Usually it's because they're black and the prosecutors need to prosecute a crime and it's convenient.) Or people who are put in detention and deported, whether to Mexico or Pakistan. During World War II we detained Japanese-American citizens for years, in camps, far away from their homes.

Why all this rending of garments for Mr. Miranda? Honest, he's fine.

[Cha]

90. Excuse me!?!!! It's Obama's fault! and, so is every fucking

thing in the Universe!@ Including this..


President Barack Obama poses for photos with members of the 1972 Miami Dolphins including head coach Don Shula (R), quarterback Bob Griese (L), and running back Larry Csonka (4th L). President Obama hosted the undefeated 1972 Super Bowl champion who didnt get the chance to be honored at the White House back then.

It's the Outrage.. it gets clicks!

[Peace Patriot]

91. Didn't Snowden say that he could snoop on the President of the USA...

...when he was Booz Allen?

This seems to me a MUCH MORE IMPORTANT matter than whether or not the UK is the poodle of the USA. I think they are, but what does it matter? The issue is a DISTRACTION. Why aren't we asking, DID the NSA or one its 'private contractors' snoop on President Obama?

I think we're looking at a sort of Mega-MIC that controls the leaders of both countries, as well as agencies, militaries, parliamentarians/congresspeople and judges. A Mega--or is it Meta?--"military-industrial complex" with spying power over EVERYBODY including the people who are allegedly their civilian commanders. Yes, meta-. The meta-military-industrial complex--our actual rulers. I mean a very powerful cabal that supersedes both countries' governments and of course both peoples. Neither we nor the British people have any say, any more, on war, torture, spying, drone murders, our economies, our civil and human rights, or our reputations in the world. Our leaders seem deaf to us. Is it because this Meta-MIC is spying on THEM (among other controls)?

It may be completely irrelevant to react to these mega-spying revelations as if they were an attack on Obama, in an effort to defend him politically--for instance, in this case, making specious distinctions between the US and UK governments on a matter such as David Miranda's detention which is so obviously a joint concern of two governments that worked hand in glove to invade Iraq and have been working hand in glove to control Mideast oil for about a hundred years. This is NOT a political matter, is what I'm saying. It's much bigger than the puppet theater that our politics has become. It has to do with WHO is REALLY in charge.

[Safetykitten]

92. Do you have any clips that prove that the UK is not the US?

[progressoid]

96. "This incident has nothing to do with the U.S. government."

[ProSense]

97. Funny images, but they don't change the facts. n/t

[progressoid]

98. facts?

"This incident has nothing to do with the U.S. government."

[dtom67]

100. I do not agree....

That the focus is on Britain. You might WISH that we turn our focus on Britain,Snowden, Greenwald,Miranda or some other distraction but I think the domestic spying issue is still in the spot light.

The Miranda story is only interesting to me because it demonstrates how Authorities tend to abuse Power whilst telling everyone that there ARE no abuses.

[Lint Head]

101. The NSA is IN the USA. Snowden. NSA. USA.

Circumstantial evidence can convict someone even on a murder charge. Greenwald is involved with Snowden. Because it involves NSA secrets the USA is involved simply by association. I'm sure the USA asked all it's allies to detain anyone with secrets obtained in a nefarious manner. It would be a dereliction not to do so.

[GeorgeGist]

109. Red Herring Special: Cooked your way

[SwissTony]

110. Britain doesn't have a first amendment, which makes it a less than ideal environment for journalist

which, presumably, accounts for the facts that many stories on events in the US which are posted on DU come from The Guardian and The Daily Mail.

British journalists seem to be doing quite well.

[GeorgeGist]

111. Have you told the Brits?

Summary: This incident has nothing to do with the U.S. government.

Because they disagree. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014569319

[ProSense]

114. How exactly

does giving the U.S. a "heads up" change the fact that this was a British decision?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023501805#post68
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023501805#post45