Miranda Was Held for Possession of Stolen Information That Would Help Terrorism

[michigandem58]

Good for the UK Home Office. They seem to have had it with the faux outrage peddled by Glenn Greenwald and his bootlickers in the international media conglomerates (such as Comcast MSNBC). They are standing up to the bullying and just went on the offense, saying Miranda was held for being in possession of “highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism”.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning. This is an ongoing police inquiry so will not comment on the specifics.”...

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/08/uk-stands-up-to-greenwald-and-media.html

[villager]

1. Each new post from this source actually manages to become that much more reprehensible

...than the previous one. I didn't think that was possible. But clearly, it is.

[last1standing]

2. Facist propaganda at its best.

n/t

[Rex]

3. Why does your blogger source hate Obama so much?

What did Obama do to piss him off?

Okay I found it...care to explain this? From the bloggers own words;

"Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama."

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. Please stop with the perpetual crap-posting.

[Capt. Obvious]

5. Yay! Another one

[pinboy3niner]

15. I was afraid we'd hit a dry spell

What a relief!

[RobertEarl]

6. Fuck that

Nobody is safe from this ever increasing oppressive government.

Sad that you think it is proper. You are obviously opposed to freedom and the constitution. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror?

[Enrique]

7. "Greenwald and co. have tried to bully the US and UK governments"

this Deaniac83 guy is a trip

"Greenwald and Co. have tried to bully the US and UK governments again and again. "

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Yeah. Greenwald personally held the entire Parliament at gunpoint at Heathrow,

then he told Kerry he'd send his kneecapper around if State didn't back off.

[G_j]

8. that link

is for idiots

[Autumn]

9. Is that your site? Not a lot of thinking there.

[JimDandy]

59. OMG I bet it is!

Or at least someone this OP knows. Would explain a lot. What a pathetic site.

[malthaussen]

11. Excuse me, I'm confused...

... if this is the case, then why was no arrest made?

-- Mal

[pnwmom]

24. Police often don't make immediate arrests. n/t

[RobertEarl]

28. On what planet?

Of course, Bushco had the alleged perps of 9/11 under surveillance and didn't arrest them. So are you stuck on planet bush?

Miranda was no terrorist.

Now if they caught with a joint he'd be in jail.....

[pnwmom]

34. I never said Miranda was a terrorist. I don't believe he is one.

I just pointed out that, as a general rule, police often wait to press charges until they've finished investigations.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Do they often find contraband at the border and allow the law breaker to fly home anyway?

It's not like he's going home to Ipswich, he flew home to Brazil. They would have arrested him if they had any standing to do so, they did not, so they let him go on his way.
Can you offer examples of the police putting freshly caught red handed culprits on jet airliners for their home nation with intention of arresting them later? It's laughable.

[Mojorabbit]

94. Hahaha. Thanks for the wonderful laugh. I needed it today. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

106. Are you laughing at yourself?? This is also for RobertEarl, who replied with "On what planet?" in

... response to pnwmom, who said:

pnwmom (45,866 posts)
24. Police often don't make immediate arrests. n/t

RobertEarl.. that would be THIS planet. Haven't you heard of officers being in deep cover, especially in gangs or Organized Crime Syndicates, for two years or more, to gather evidence and build airtight cases that are 100% sure of being prosecuted and their targets don't get to "walk" due to some technical error or something?? It happens all the time, believe it or not! That's how you bring down a whole Organization... by draining the pond and getting the Big Fish too, instead just catching the same 'little fish' over and over again.

Mojorabbit... You can stop laughing now, unless you are laughing at yourself for not knowing this, too. pnwmom made a valid observation. We should be laughing at YOU, and thanking YOU for the laughs, because you didn't know this either.

Just my 2 cents worth....

Ghost

[Mojorabbit]

108. We are talking about a detention under a terror provision

He was going home to another country. If they had any inkling to arrest him they would have done it then. It was an absurd statement in the context of the thread. What were they planning on doing? Traveling to Brazil and arresting him there at another time?

[Recursion]

113. Because nobody is claiming Miranda broke any law.

You don't need to break a law for law enforcement to recover classified documents from you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

126. If they took him into custody to recover stolen documents but he was carrying none

why did it take 9 hours? Once they had him in custody they could have searched him and his possessions and settled the matter with the minimal amount of inconvenience to the citizen they presume to protect.

[morningfog]

12. What bullshit. The article, the blogger and this OP.

You wanna talk about boot licking.

[ocpagu]

13. The problem with this argument is...

... the law doesn't apply to Miranda. There are several items within the terrorist act describing actions and individuals who could be framed under it. Miranda doesn't fit any of them. UK Home Office pulled that out of nowhere. They can't explain that, so they appeal to cheap (also self-absorbed and arrogant) distraction such as this link.

[Bragi]

14. Why is this poster on DU?

I'm not suggesting this poster be banned, I just don't understand why they are on a board for people with liberal views. There is simply no way anyone who suppotts lawless authoritarianism and who even conflates journalism with terrorism belongs here. Either that, or I don't belong here.

[Capt. Obvious]

16. I think he's only here 80-20 percent of the time

That's what was suggested in one of the other threads.

[michigandem58]

17. The actions of UK authorities were indeed lawful

under the Terrorism Act of 2000.

[leftstreet]

23. Trying to make status quo Dems look even worse?

[DirkGently]

26. Looks like it. No one thinks what this OP says.

... not even our esteemed DU colleagues who are ... skeptical of NSA criticism.

This is fascist filth, and I refuse to believe anyone posting here in earnest would take such a position.

[pnwmom]

25. There is no purity test on DU. The poster may not have the P.C. view on Greenwald, et al

but still be liberal on a host of other topics.

[RobertEarl]

29. Yes there is a purity test

When pure bullshit like M58 and yours is spewed here it gets tested.

It stinks!! But you knew that didn't you?

[pnwmom]

33. Where is the "pure bullshit" I've "spewed"? n/t

[Whisp]

45. I think that feller was brushing his teeth

and looking into a mirror when he said that.

[pnwmom]

47. That would explain it. n/t

[Aerows]

69. P.C. View?

Well, now. Isn't that an interesting turn of phrase. Tell me more about how awful "PC" is.

[Cha]

58. Someone who is a Dem and has a different view than you do on the whole

Greenwald hype shite. That's just really too bad. You'd like to stifle discussion and have this a purist board but call me crazy.. I don't think Skinner would agree.

[JimDandy]

65. That website is worthless and this OP promotes it relentlessly.

Have you looked at it? It's not FreeRepublic, but still... The site was promoting Romney over Obama.

[Cha]

77. Yeah, I feel the same about fooking Greenwald and his propaganda.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. That site should be unifyingly offensive to all of us here. The 'writer' stated his disgust with

Obama and said he was not voting for him in the general against Mitt. Here's what you are embracing and endorsing:
""Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too
Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama."

That sort of stuff will get you banned in the BOG so careful how you link to your new fav website!

[JimDandy]

97. Vote for Romney is really the same as a journalist exposing NSA spying?

Again, did you look at the site, or not? It's a 'BOG-worthy ban' my forum hosting friend.

[sheshe2]

101. As another BOG hosting friend,

let me explain, the BOG is a group not a forum. GD is a forum not a group.

That's a huge difference.

[Bluenorthwest]

118. But Cha is endorsing this writer who favored Mitt as just another Democrat with a point of view.

Odd that BOG hosts would promote anti Obama materials in GD while affecting a grand protector of all things Obama stance in the BOG. By odd I mean wildly inconsistent, not just to other DUers, mean, nasty and highly questionable. I don't think a blogger who endorsed Mitt over Obama has any place on DU at all, but the BOG hosts think it is great stuff?!?!? The hypocrisy and selective outrage is towering. Towering. And Cha has so far not addressed this endorsement he has given to the anti Obama blogger, which she very specifically gave, chiding other DUers for not welcoming his 'point of view'.
So you hosts of the BOG dig anti Obama bloggers, but ban DUers who question a policy. You promote blogs that trash the President, but you affect this notion that you are guardians of his reputation?

[Cha]

104. As I said.. Greenwald is hyperbolic Lying Propaganda.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. But you also endorsed the 'writer' of the site in the OP who attacked Obama and endorsed Mitt.

Your hypocrisy and situational ethics are really something to behold. Cheering for anti Obama authors while banning other Obama voting Democrats for questioning policy that defines our lives and rights. Good stuff, good, good stuff.
Centrists think they can have the cake, and also eat the cake. You endorse a man who promoted voting against Obama in the last general. That's the quality and nature of your 'support' for the President, it is actually just verbiage you engage in for your own sport and pleasure, Obama has nothing to do with it, hell you favor some blogger who held Obama up as unworthy of our votes. That's where you stand because it serves Cha today. A way to act out while exploiting Obama as an excuse for your name calling.
It is what it is, I have rarely seen a more hypocritical or self serving set of posts.

[Mojorabbit]

96. There needs to be standards about linked sites. This one is a good candidate

for banning on this website. It goes beyond the pale.

[Bonobo]

112. Because Reverend Al Sharpton never lied to him. nt

[boston bean]

18. that website is a junk. homophobic junk!

[Quantess]

99. Put that homophobic junk away! I don't want to see it!

(Agreed, BTW)

[xiamiam]

19. what a load of crap..nt

[ljm2002]

20. Is that your own blog?

Because it seems to be your favorite source.

Well in any case, you can parrot the authorities all you want; that does not make it true. That is why some of think critically, so we can examine the predictable justifications that are sure to be put forward by them, and draw our own conclusions.

There are bootlickers in the media, all right, but they are not the ones you think they are.

[UTUSN]

21. R#2 & K for, I think I was the first here to suggest MIRANDA might be a "mule" for stolen data

since, duh, he is in the inner circle of the group and travels around among them, AND to suggest that it is ludicrous for GREENWALD to claim some shadowy "journalism" privilege for just about anybody connected to him just because HE's a journalist.

And I'll now take it a step further, that GREENWALD himself is crossing more blatantly the line of privilege as a journalist when he escalates his threat-making, edging into blackmail, and seemingly all for personal pique and revenge.

To the various forms of name-calling: I have never "defended OBAMA" or "defended the NSA" or "abandoned civil liberties," through all of this, much less the most recent, "homophobia." Back during Election '12, this GREENWALD was involved in some kind of controversy (NAW, it CAN'T be!1) and I had never heard of him and posted a criticism, and was SOUNDLY FLAMED and name-called "homophobe." Not only did I know nothing about his personal life, but I didn't even know who he was!1

Not that anybody cares about my personal pronouncements, but I've posted many times that somebody's membership in any one of the Democratic coalition's constituency groups (minorities, union, whatever) does NOT mean to me a gold card for getting out of jail for anything they might do, does NOT exempt anybody from assessment or criticism just for being a harmed group member. That's what "equality" is about.

From the first, it was always the motives and methods, first of SNOWDEN alone, then compounded with GREENWALD. A nearly computer/internet illiterate, I have always assumed for years that all manner of "trackin g" by mere business companies not to mention government (read "SURVEILLANCE&quot is pervasive, such that even whatever "reforms" might result from all this attention, the tracking will just be more underground.

To those who claim some of us support tracking/surveillance, just yesterday I called a cereal company with a simple question as a customer, and sure enough when the issue was over, the representative slid into asking first for Zip Code, then bit by bit, name, address, phone. When she got to the e-addy, she said, "You sound like you're not happy." I said I really minded "having" (I could have hung up) to release all this information just to ask a stupid question, and that I did not want to receive any e-mails or promotions and would not provide the e-addy. Actually, I assume they had my Caller ID and other things just from my calling.

[Jesus Malverde]

22. Interesting comments on that thread

They use a lot of the same key words and framing you see here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. So, are the Brits going to release the information that "Would Help Terrorism" to prove their case?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Then how do we know that what they siezed would "help terrorism"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. I'm saying that those that expose war crimes and wrongdoing by governement, should be applauded.

Not stifled by those who condone torture, assassinations, and spying on their own people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. What harm?

How much harm? As much as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the CIA, the NSA?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. And, you know that how?

Because the NSA told you? If what you say is true, then why not release the info the Brits took because it's already known to our "enemies"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. So, why not release the info they siezed to prove the harm?

If it is indeed, "harmful", let's see it instead of having some stooge tell us it's "harmful".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. They don't have to have evidence of a crime to prove a crime?

How very....medieval.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Yes, I am an American and I like the idea of knowing what my government does in my name.

I'd prefer that I can gain that knowledge without the aid of whistle blowers but, sadly, my government prefers to act in secret.

Are you a vegetarian?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. From whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden?

That the NSA is spying on us and most of the rest of the world.

That we massacred a lot of people at My-lai.

That the Vietnam war was begun with the false report of a naval battle that wasn't.

That we cooperated with mass murderers.

Shall I go on?

Glad to hear you're not a vegetarian and I presume that you're an American.

[HangOnKids]

68. Are you an American?

The rest of your post sounds like a CSI script.

[HangOnKids]

74. Please do not quit your day job.

Yes and thank you too!

[HangOnKids]

56. Dr. Phil is in the house!

Thanks doc, because reading is fundamental.

[Whisp]

48. 'enemies have cracked the English Language Code'....

bwahahaha!

welcome, Little Milly.

[HangOnKids]

76. Thanking DUers with 6 posts hidden is always a grand idea

Rock on Milly.

[HangOnKids]

83. Sorry not playing. n/t

[HangOnKids]

87. Ah more baiting

Sorry Milly.

[geek tragedy]

31. G4A? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. You deserve the DU DP for continuing to post from a hate site.

PS: your hero has no understanding of what a "bootlicker" is. Hint: craven individuals lick the boots OF THOSE IN POWER.

[michigandem58]

75. How is is a hate site? n/t

[demmiblue]

35. Unrec for theputridview (and shame on the reccers). n/t

[NuclearDem]

38. A jury apparently already voted 4-2 to let the link to this homophobic rag stand.

God, what the hell?

[michigandem58]

52. Congratulations to the jury

Unfounded accusations shouldn't prevent you from encountering different positions.

[Cha]

60. You call it "a homophobic rag" and the blogger is Gay. WTF! nm

[NYC Liberal]

66. Too funny. I guess I am a "gay homophobe" too

Who knew?

[Cha]

82. Anything they can do to push misinformation that distracts from what's actually

being exposed about greenwald and his carrier, NYC Liberal.

[michigandem58]

78. Some are desperate to silence other views

and will say anything to do so.

[NuclearDem]

90. Right, because the Third Way pragmatics have had it so rough over the years

Finally, someone standing up to the far left bullies!

[Cha]

132. No, because the Third Way Greenwalds want it to be freaking Lock Step.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Bluenorthwest]

121. The blogger uses homophobic tropes and meme toward those with whom he disagrees.

This is, as anyone with any experience can tell you, common to any minority or subgroup, that those inside of it can and do make improper use of the ugliness directed toward the whole group to taunt or hurt or characterize individuals within that group I guess your claim is that no gay people can ever say or do anything homophobic, so let's just start with some history, have you heard of Roy Cohn? Well you should have....gay, virulent attacker of other gay people, favored closeted life and closeted peers, very willing to attack other gay people for being gay using the full force of government with his work with Senator McCarthy, whom you should also learn about.
" Cohn and McCarthy targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for suspected Communist sympathies, but also for alleged homosexuality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn#Sexuality
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html


You are wailing at shadows in order to defend a blogger who trashed Barack Obama.

[freshwest]

43. All good common sense, clearly stated. Still, who is the terrorist being aided?

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 04:16 AM - Edit history (2)

The term terrorist seems to have been abused so much in this century, I am reduced to using it for the only clear threats I see to my life and liberty, demagogues of the 2nd Amendment Solution and 10th type who want to take us back a few centuries. They are going state by state to establish fascist theocratic plutocracies. The G.A.S. attacks never address those dangers, making them suspect to me as being with the team that is doing it.

The team arming and ginning themselves up to off me and mine. Those are the 'terrorists' I am concerned with. The rest, including the guys in Boston who were fans of the Alex Jones show, or others who listen to Glenn Beck and have killed real people in real life, and the assorted John Birch Society, Tea Party and Libertarian fanatics are commiting what I call terrorism.

The rest, including this fiasco by Greenwald setting up Snowden and Miranda to act as fall guys, and Assange using Manning, is just used to disempower the rule of government through the daily attrition of tripe being spewed. It's not terrorism of the brick and mortar type, it's just propaganda. Repeated endlessly, since the days of Reagan in new and exciting packaging. so it's TheTruth©.

And it works well, keeps those who are trying to keep the social contract going off balance fighting charges of being totalitarians because they want government to tax the wealthy to confiscate the wealth they've confiscated from us all. But G.A.S. have no need of or respect for that continuing to exist. So they can spit in everyone's faces and still make Koch dollars for putting on a media show. It's pathetic.

I still don't see terrorism of the kind the law was made to address, like 9/11 or 7/7. But I do see the theft of the data, which none of us know what it was to begin with, and could be used by international RWNJs to do harm and has been in the past.

Such as the Manning case, where he admitted some of what he released did 'harm to real people'. I'm not concerned about his being sorry for 'hurting the government of the USA', as he is talking in terms maybe only military people think.

I see this current spat of unending provocations with the RW media like Comcast MSNBC, et al, as an anti-government act used as a diversion. And it's demoralizing and divisive, as if media didn't how to push every one of our buttons.

It keeps the public eye off the Koch brothers and John Birch Society and what they are doing to steal my freedom and liberty on a daily basis. Since the triad of G.A.S. doesn't ever speak to those concerns, I cannot imagine what rarified atmosphere they exist in where it doesn't matter. They are working to create exactly what the 1% wants.

The G.A.S. speak of the people or principles being 'thrown under the bus' should take a good look under the bus. A lot of us have been thrown under the bus for real, and we are still alive, but we're invisible to the crowd who suddenly feel scared. Come on and check us out under the proverbial bus, there are billions of us down here. We don't bite. At least, we usually don't...

BTW, I never believed in the 'national security' meme or those 'national interests' abroad in my entire life. I don't see where this is terrorism, but treaties state why the UK did what it did, and it goes back a long way:

...The treaty sharing info goes back to WW2.

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 was NOT forced, it was for mutual protection in a world being overrun by fascists, who were NOT kidding around one damned bit. And they still aren't, but they're a lot slicker now.

If a new generation wants to break the ties of the USA to the rest of the Anglosphere, just go for it. Personally, as I see things, the USA has no real cultural identity and is more like a crossroads. But that's for a longer discussion on another day.

The information discussed here 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 trials. And those nations didn't want to see it happen again, thus the firm support from treaty partners, both the government and many of the people who live within those nations.

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

I don't see that anyone is offering a solution in real life terms, which is not media madness. That would require legislation restricting these governments from taking private information as they have in Europe. We used to pass such legislation in the progressive era of the 1970's. That is the worry here, individually. What goes on between those governments is not the same.

There is no law saying it is proper to take information from any of the partners. Which is what Snowden did, at the bidding of his party or from Snowden or Poitras, we don't know which. It appears that Assange is late to this particular media gala.

The treaty partners all work together as a unit, as they are bound by law to do. I find the ignorance of history and civics to be bad for all of us. And I hear no calls to revoke the treaty which was signed to make it Britain's business many years ago.

We dream of a world without any enemies and many of us are in vigorous debate over who the enemy du jour is as we see things today. Frankly, I don't have any enemies abroad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023501805#post108

^ Edited from original. ^

This detention was not persecution. As if you can persecute a person waving a gun in your face or shouting fire in a theater, which is exactly what Greenwald did in the most public way he possibly could. He was orchestrating a play for the media stage that he supplied the actor his role, wrote the script and advertised it in the NYT of all places. Just to be sure to get a big audience. I almost wonder if the UK was in on the scam, and have decided to play the villain for him while they do some skullduggery on the rest of their people as the internet burns with outrage over this staged event.

If he hadn't announced in advance what was going on to the world and the fabled Police State!!!11!! had just grabbed him without notice, it would only prove that a guy hanging with a guy who threatened to do harm by releasing information was asked about it. Big Brother was not needed, as the event was promoted. If the UK had stood by to let him pass and allowed information to be passed than resulted in a bombing later in London, the same groups would be screaming False Flag!!!!!!

And the party in power in the UK would be out of office immediately. That's where all of this stuff gets murky and can be abused easily. I don't see it here, though. It's SOP in a world to snoop since 'intelligence' is looking for the future with a slightly better track record than reading sheep entrails. And it will never be much better, since the human mind is capable of an infinite variety of tricks.

As far to the terrorism idea, in a way, if that cost lives that would be terrorism. But as I've never served in the military or government, nor wanted to be, either, I don't have knowledge of how this works. It's rather high on my 'ick' and 'boring' list.

But Greenwald set this up by blatantly saying, 'We've got stolen goods, we dare you, just plain dare you, to stop us. We are 'journalists' and you can't touch us. Boo!'

This is not the way someone trying to keep something safe does. Greenwald got exactly what he planned to happen, and the UK was the patsy for this vaudeville act. It's likely the stolen goods were not there, and this was just set up to keep the G.A.S. team getting their Koch $$$s. Because every time the government is made a fool of, it's a win for them and fascism.

I for one, am waiting for this guy to get off the stage and for the media to address real people's problems, but I'm not holding my breath.

Greenwald has been a Koch stooge for years as posted on this board. His former associates at the Exiled have revealed his less than 'professional journalist' behavior more than once, also posted here at DU. I was in the crowd that thought he was doing great stuff until then, and left the camp, not because of his Obama hatred, but just plain old lying and using people.

He has the same credibility with me at this time as Beck does as a historian, O'Reilly as a journalist, Robertson as a prophet and Limbaugh as truth teller. Meh.

Michigandem, is the terrorism charge as I state it, or something beyond the fact deprived public's comprehension?

[HardTimes99]

50. Liar! (Both you and your source) - nt

[snappyturtle]

53. +1000 nt

[JimDandy]

57. A shitty site you're linking to.

Not surprised since it's all you do lately.

[Enrique]

93. I agree

I don't know about the whole site, but that poster in particular. The Obama campaign actually sent one of his columns around, attacking Paul Krugman and using some derogatory term for Obama critics like Firebagger or something.

His columns get posted here quite often, they are imho sycophancy at its most shameless.

[boston bean]

100. You can't elieve a fucking thing written on that website.

Not one god damned thing.

[bowens43]

63. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....etc

the spin is strong in this one

[Cha]

72. From your link, michigandem..

The "when in Rome" principle - you go to another country and their airport, you play by their rules. Don't get bent out of shape when the laws you voluntarily subjected yourself to get enforced on you.

The "theft is not journalism" principle - smuggling something that isn't yours across international borders doesn't make you a journalist; it makes you a thief and a smuggler.

and, finally...

The "bullying backfires" principle - Greenwald and Co. have tried to bully the US and UK governments again and again. Weeks ago, Greenwald threatened the US government with its "worst nightmare" if something should happen to Edward Snowden. Days ago, he threatened the UK government with basically the same thing after his young partner in crime got held up. Greenwald and The Guardian have acted far more like bullies than like ethical, impartial journalists. They shouldn't be suddenly surprised that their bullying is backfiring.

Lol on.. "They shouldn't be suddenly surprised that their bullying is backfiring."! Doesn't he know that greenwaldites are the only ones who are approved for "bullying"!?!


Thanks michigandem

[michigandem58]

73. Thanks for actually reading

So many would rather whine than engage.

[Cha]

85. They whine to distract. So blatantly obvious. nm

[sheshe2]

102. I read it too michigan.

Cha is right. They whine to distract.

They also try to intimidate and suppress your point of view, with, I am sorry to say, some rather vile statements. That in apparent in the hidden post.

Thanks for your OP.

[bravenak]

88. Whoa. I'm sorry someone said this to you. I don't think you are a homophobe.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Congrats, michigandem, you're a homophobe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3506882

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:40 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Getting personal. Meanness! Calmate!
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Uhm, huh?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[michigandem58]

91. Some claim the blogger is homphobic, yet he's gay!

Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry folks are becoming so unhinged about opposing views.

[bravenak]

92. I've never met a gay homophobe. It's like an oxymoron.

We gotta calm the insults down around here. Some of my favorite posters are people I never agree with. I can't wait until we start fighting republicans again. It's our true duty.

[freshwest]

111. Agreed. As Bill Maher said:

Democrats in America were put on Earth to do one thing... drag the ignorant, hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case, is the 19th...

[Bluenorthwest]

122. Have you ever heard of Roy Cohn? He worked with Hoover and McCarthy, he was a closted gay

man who spent much time attacking others for or with their sexuality. He used tactics similar to those used by this blogger.
To claim that members of a minority group are always loyal and kind to others in their own group is Pollyanna level snappishness enabled by sheer ignorance.
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html

[Union Scribe]

107. He says he's gay. People online can say anything.

And they do. Especially to provide cover for their trolling and bigotry. Given the dumbfuck blogger's other posts we see thanks to you, we already know the guy is a hyperbolic liar. There's no reason to think he's telling the truth about himself either.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. Meet Roy Cohn, henceman to Hoover and McCarthy, gay man who attacked other gay people

viciously and often using abused powers of investigation and prosecution as part of the Republican Party. Roy was an enemy of the gay community, hated in his day and to this day. An ultimate user of anti gay themes and memes while also being an active gay man out at the clubs and all of that.
It bears repeating in this context that Roy was a prime partner in the McCarthy witch hunts.

http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html

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

So there is some historical context for your incredulity.

[Cha]

109. Thank goodness it wasn't a bunch of posters on that

jury who can't debate on the merits so they have to try and smear michigandem. And, I'm hearing shit about BOG members trying to get smeared with the same stupid brush.

It's pathetic how bad they want to shut down discussion. Fucking Lock Step their way or they will get vicious bullly on your ass.

[bravenak]

114. Maybe something in the water.

I've noticed democrats acting like republicans a lot lately. It's bizarre. I love BOG. BOG is a nice place to be. Need to spend more time there to get my bearings.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. If you love the BOG why do you defend this 'blogger' cited in the OP? He wrote this:

""Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too
Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama."

He's talking about the election against Mitt. How does this material fit into BOG philosophy? Or is the BOG a place of mere affectations, outside of which members engage in attacks upon the President and disavowals of the Democratic nominee?
Just don't see how BOG fans could endorse this blog while retaining any legitimate claim to being prime supporters of the President.

[bravenak]

128. Cite exactly where I defend him.

I just don't think I've ever met a gay homophobe.
I don't care if he voted for the man on the moon.
Other people hating Obama doesnt phase me. I live in Alaska, the land of the tea party, and open carry. I hear this crap all the time right here on DU.He doesn't sound much different than members of DU. Some are worse than him on this very site and blame the President for everything. Do you go around and try to get the Obama haters on this site to justify their hate for our democratic president? Or am I special?
I don't have to justify myself to you.
Are you a BOGGER? If not, mind ya bidness! If yes we can discuss in BOG.
This place is chock full of attacks on the president and what not. But not by me. Show me where I ever engaged in attacks on the president.
Go ahead and look, you won't find anything.

[winter is coming]

98. Ugh. Please stop flogging this shitty blog. The Weekly World News has more credibility. n/t

[4bucksagallon]

103. I don't see why all the argument on this subject.

Snowed In stole the data while working through his employer. I don't think that is in dispute, even Snowed In has admitted his theft. Which is why he ran like a coward. To be in possession of stolen material is a crime, cue Greenwald. Greenwald has admitted he has "more" information to be released.

[eridani]

105. Why should anyone believe the UK Home Office? n/t

[Fearless]

110. I contend that you are holding on your person information that could aid terrorism

Will you be stopped at airports for several hours because of this rumor that I am now fabricating out of thin air? No? Why is that? Because rumors are not evidence perhaps?

[cali]

115. fuck the moronic "peoplesview".

talk about toady piece of shit idiots, he takes the cake.

[Heidi]

129. +100 jillion!!!!!! (nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

117. how do you know the outrage is fake? also what else were the british supposed to say?

'we held him to scare his partner?"

[Dash87]

119. Never criticize the government. If you do, the terrorists will win.

All journalists who criticize the US government want the terrorists to win. You're either with us or against us!

[QC]

120. Ah, The Peehole Spew.

Was wondering why we didn't get our daily update yesterday. Worried me a little.

[Little Star]

123. Not this shit again.....

Once those stolen Documents that whistle blower Snowden turned over to journalists they then became the work product for the journalists.

David Miranda was carrying legal work product for Greenwald & Poitras. He was not carrying stolen documents. He had every right to freely do so without being held for 9 hours and intimidated.

What is so god-damn hard to understand about that?

It is legal for Greenwald to have Snowden's stolen documents or he would be charged with something. He has not. Because it is legal for a journalist to have those documents.

What the hell is wrong with you Greenwald haters? You could at least try and grasp the fact Greenwald has done NOTHING illegal.

These kind of posts are looking foolish.

[Coyotl]

127. WHOIS = Admin Name: Registration Private

Who is behind this crap?

Domain Name: THEPEOPLESVIEW.NET
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2012-08-30 20:20:55
Creation Date: 2008-09-14 18:19:40
Registrar Expiration Date: 2013-09-14 18:19:40
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona

Admin Name: Registration Private

[Heidi]

130. Convenient, isn't it?

[michigandem58]

131. Creepy n/t

[Nancy Waterman]

133. There are reasons to secretly spy on plotters

Things are not so black and white as people try to make them out to be.
And letting out information that helps those who would harm us is not such a great idea.
Why is this so hard to understand.

[michigandem58]

134. A breath of fresh air

Some realism. Thank you.

[HangOnKids]

135. What if thery think you are a plotter?

Or your Mom, or brother, or children? Or your dog? Happy to let them spy now?

[Iggo]

136. Mm-hmm.