Greenwald, Poitras enter U.S. freely, but this is no time to celebrate

[DonViejo]

The NSA journalists feared persecution on returning to U.S.; their fear is a sad reflection of this time

NATASHA LENNARD

Despite fear over detention by the authorities, journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras — the first reporters to meet with Edward Snowden and receive access to his trove of leaked NSA documents — reentered the U.S. without trouble.

Both journalists feared detention or at the very least questioning on returning to U.S. soil. The Justice Department had refused to give any information about whether Greenwald and Poitras might be subject to a grand jury investigation. Furthermore, last year Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was held at Heathrow airport for nine hours, his electronic devices confiscated, under a U.K. counterterror act. In this age, when journalism is all too often aligned with terrorism, Greenwald and Poitras were understandably concerned. Indeed, Poitras has been questioned for hours on end at U.S. airports in the past over her journalistic work pre-dating the Snowden leaks.

But, as Greenwald told reporters Friday, he “expected that they wouldn’t be that incredibly stupid and self-destructive to try and do something that in the eyes of the world would be viewed as incredibly authoritarian. … That would forever undermine their ability to criticize other governments for imprisoning journalists and for having a constitutional fight over the First Amendment that successive administrations have wanted to avoid.”

And indeed, the U.S. authorities were not so stupid, and Poitras and Greenwald entered the U.S. safely. That the two journalists feared detention at all remains grimly reflective of what whistle-blower attorney Jesselyn Raddack calls the current “war on information.” Lest we forget, Barrett Brown and Chelsea Manning sit behind bars; Edward Snowden faces hefty charges under the Espionage Act; AP journalists’ phone logs were surveilled by the DOJ; Fox News correspondent James Rosen was once named by the FBI as a possible “co-conspirator” in a crime for the journalistic act of obtaining leaked information. The NSA revelations, shedding light on a vast and unbounded corporate-government surveillance nexus, have unquestionably been in the public interest. The whistle-blower behind them should not fear persecution, nor should the journalists reporting the story. But where Poitras and Greenwald can point to the First Amendment (or whatever meek vestiges of it that the U.S. cares to recognize), Snowden has no such recourse and no such protection.

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/11/greenwald_and_poitras_enter_u_s_without_detention/

[SidDithers]

1. Or maybe, despite Greenwald's persecution complex, the US authorities don't really care about him...

Sid

[Rex]

2. Or maybe they do care about him, but don't want to let on.

This is spy vs. spy stuff.

[SidDithers]

4. It's the old double-reverse fake-out...

These spy games are much too complex for my simple mind.

Sid

[Rex]

5. Mine too, the best I could do was guess what the mad magazine cover would be

when you folded them together. Spying was way over my head.

[flamingdem]

8. Ha ha, that's a great one

Museum worthy

[SidDithers]

10. I used to love the Mad Magazine folding back covers...

Mad Magazine was part of my childhood. I used to try to draw cartoons like Don Martin.

Sadly, those days are long past. I've become a big fan of cracked.com in the last few years, tho.

Sid

[JaneyVee]

7. Stop, you'll hurt his ego.

[flamingdem]

9. Yesterdays news

GG is a big yawn at this point

[Rex]

11. SO true! Not even 100 replies yet and this is big news!

I bet he flies away a free man. Any takers? Not like GG is Snowden. Or maybe he thinks he is. Still...I bet good beer and travel money he will not be touched and flies home or wherever without delay.

[KittyWampus]

24. The real test is if his partner (who is or is not a journalist) is allowed free passage.

[treestar]

58. And who is not a US citizen.

Though I understand that now Glenn could file for his green card - if they are married.

It would be of interest to find out if the partner could get in on the same terms as other Brazilians.

[sabrina 1]

12. He never was the 'news'. The BIG News is the illegal spying on the American people and that has not

gone away. I guess the supporters of the 'security state' learned that trying to make the story about Greenwald and Snowden didn't work and arresting a journalist would not be the best strategy while refusing to arrest the actual criminals who have been violating our Constitutional Rights for years now.

[Rex]

13. We shall see. If we are doomed and living in a police state

they will snap him up at the airport when he goes to leave. If not, he will not be interfered with.

[sabrina 1]

17. I doubt that. They use smear campaigns now, as we have seen beyond a shadow of doubt,

re Greenwald. See all the talking points right here in this thread? 'Ego, attention seeker' etc. When the same talking points are continually repeated, there is no question that a smear campaign is in progress. But we know that so that too isn't working too well.

And when we have MSM 'journalists' asking journalists like Greenwald, if the thinks he should be prosecuted for publishing material provided by a Whistle Blower, we know that is intended to plant the idea that that journalist is a 'traitor' or doing something wrong.

The problem for those trying to protect those who are tearing the Constitution apart now is, that despite all the efforts to discredit those who reveal the truth about what these government agencies are up to, the people seem to like their Constitution and are not buying a lot of the expensive smear campaign material.

Greenwald is absolutely right to be concerned and to make it public. That is the best weapon against being arrested simply for publishing information that is in the public's interest.

[rhett o rick]

20. I think the continued vitriol aimed at Greenwald and Snowden should be beneath DU posters.

It's one thing to present arguments against what a whistle-blower did, it's totally different to just name-call in post after post. It's really no different than bullies on the playground that find someone that doesnt conform and call them names over and over. If you notice these same people doing the name calling are often against those that dont conform or question authority. They wont try to bully Clapper because they recognize him as a bigger bully.

Of course there are some that dont want to find out that the NSA/FBI/CIA cabal arent looking out for the best interest of the people. So they attack those that try to spoil the illusion.

I am glad that most of DU posters support open-mindedness and dont condemn all whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, crazy lefties, etc.

[sabrina 1]

21. What's even more of a failure, when they try to claim that Greenwald's concerns

are baseless is that the world REMEMBERS the detention of his partner on behalf of the US not to mention the harassment of people like Manning's friend, House, and the outrageous detention of Bolivia's president, just to mention a few of the examples we have witnessed recently.

They need better talking points, the old ones aren't working so well. A much more educated public, thanks to the availability of more information than what is controlled by the MSM eg, has rendered their smear tactics almost useless.

I personally would be ashamed to pass on these smears on behalf of the 1% no matter how I might feel personally about someone. And you know you are on the right side of history by those who are there with you. I'll take having Ellsberg and all the others recently tossed under that big old bus, on my side any day, rather than Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney eg.

[grasswire]

26. yes, yes

You know you are on the right side of history by those who are there with you.

Preach it. I am proud to be on the right side.

[davidpdx]

33. So you can't dislike Greenwald and Snowden

and at the same time be against the NSA, et al.? Got it. We'll call it the "Rhett Rule" from now on (and the we can't care about any other countries is the "Sabrina Rule" because jesus christ we only make it worse in Russia by fighting for gay rights).

Any other rules you want to change?

[sabrina 1]

37. And just why do you think 'we care' about other countries? We 'cared' so much about Iraq, right?

We just loved the people of Afghanistan, to death! And we are droning people in Pakistan, because we 'care so much about them'.

Btw, when did you decide that Bush cared about Iraq and Afghanistan?

I prefer to listen to the people from the countries we 'cared' so much about to find out if THEY feel 'cared' about.

The rules haven't changed, as far as I know, at least not for those of us who sure didn't think it was 'caring' for the people of Iraq that caused us to bomb their country into smithereens.

Sounds to me like you either supported Bush's 'altruistic' invasions of those countries or you didn't and are now making new rules for yourself, because I certainly still abide by our old rules, for some reason, and you now support Bush's foreign adventures and policies.

The US 'cares'? About what? Have you looked at the state of the countries we have invaded lately? Their people? If torture and bombs = ''caring', I suppose you're right!

[davidpdx]

71. I was against the war from the beginning and have never said otherwise

By "caring" I mean helping in non-violent ways. So stop insisting I was for any war. I don't believe countries should take over others, that includes Russia. Also I've lived abroad for ten years (starting in the beginning of 2004) and saw exactly what Bush did to our image much more than most of those on this board.

I believe both Snowden and Greenwald are smug sons of a bitches, but I support NSA reform. Take a look at what state I'm from. I've voted for the one of senator who is LEADING the charge to reform the NSA. My state has TWO of the most progressive Democrats in the country, both of which I've voted for every time.

Have a very unpleasant day.

[sabrina 1]

75. I had a very pleasant day actually, and would never wish for anyone to have an 'unpleasant' day even

if they disagree with me. I hope you too had a pleasant day.

Frankly I do not see the relevance of the personalities of journalists and Whistle Blowers when the issues are as important as the ones that have been facing this country for over a decade now.

Seems like a diversion to me when people attack the messengers, who are for the most part, irrelevant, rather than focus on the message which certainly is NOT irrelevant.

The US Government has been spying on its own people for years now. THAT is the issue. Forgive me if I can only judge someone's position on issues by what they write here. Anyone who chose to attack the messengers going back to when the first Whistle Blowers, Blake, Binney et al exposed THESE SAME VIOLATIONS OF OUR RIGHTS under Bush, generally supported the issues back then. They attacked these Whistle Blowers as 'arrogant, ego driven' etc. I remember it well. Those whistle blowers on OUR side were considered to be HEROES.

So I will continue to believe that these anti-Whistle Blower/Journalist talking points are coming, as they always have, from sources that support the security state. If someone chooses to repeat them, they should realize it is not a recent startegy aimed only at these two latest people, it has been the strategy from the beginning.

I frankly don't care one bit about the personalities of the messengers, that is totally irrelevant to the issue. What they have revealed should frighten every single American to the core, IF they care about this country.

I'm not sure why anyone who IS concerned about the criminal activities of the NSA and its 'Security Contractors', cares at all about the messengers. That makes zero sense unless someone is trying to distract from the issues.

[davidpdx]

77. You made the ACCUSATION that I supported the war in Iraq

and now you are now you are making the ACCUSATION that I support the NSA spying because I said that Snowden and Greenwald are smug sons of a bitches. I DO care about the personalities and motives of the individuals that have stolen and handled classified data. I support the work of Senator Wyden to bring about reforms.

So as to your accusations, please proceed...

[sabrina 1]

78. Hey, if you repeat the talking points of the security state supporters, I have no choice but to go

with what you write.

I have little interest in the messengers, there have been so many of them over the past decade.

The message is what counts to me and to most people who actually care about maintaining the democracy we claim to be.
I have zero interest in who the messengers turn out to be.

You, otoh, appear to be far more concerned with the messengers and the orchestrated smear campaigns designed to distract from the message, than the majority of the people on the planet are. So don't blame ME if you come across as being far more absorbed with the messengers than the message. Read your own words, that is what I did.

We are being SPIED ON by our own government!! Sorry if I don't give a rat's ass about who told us about these violations of our Constitutional rights.

Clearly to me, as a reader of your comments, you appear to be far more absorbed in personalities than in this major issue facing this country today.

[davidpdx]

80. You have no choice but to lie?

When I clearly stated my opinion on two different issues you continue to twisted it to fit your own "special" definition. That's not a choice, that's called lying. Maybe you don't know the difference.

[treestar]

59. Those two are immune from criticism

for some reason.

Very odd. I thought we had freedom of speech? Yet they have on problem "smearing" others..

[davidpdx]

72. Yep

[sabrina 1]

76. Those two are not the issue, except to people who are attempting to divert attention from

the issues. Which are serious enough that even this President has finally addressed them by making a proposal to end the massive spying on the American people, which was DEFENDED here just in case anyone forgot.

Now that the president, who initially defended the himself, tried to explain why the 'collection and storage' of everyone's private data was necessary for national security, has changed his mind after the Panel he set up found that these violations of our rights had done NOTHING to catch terrorists AS WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID.

I am thrilled that the President has realized that the Left was right again.

But had it not been for Whistle Blower Snowden this time, Drake among a growing line of Whistle Blowers, and journalists like Greenwald, the President could not have come to that correct conclusion.

Far from 'those two' being 'immune' from criticism, they are the targets of smear campaigns, which I have repeatedly told you and am more than happy to provide proof but which you consistently ignore while continuing to try to make THEM the focus of these discussions. Why do you do that? What is the purpose now that the President himself has used their information to protect the American people from this massive spying by Security Contractors and the NSA??

[BeyondGeography]

3. It's no Russia, to be sure

[sabrina 1]

6. Shameful, isn't it, that now journalists are under surveillance and need to make themselves very

public in order to protect themselves from arrest for doing what journalists are supposed to do.

[Whisp]

15. One who has a permanent 'look at me' sign stapled to himself...

complaining about 'surveillance'.

lol...

and he's no journalist. He's a checkbook blogger/scammer capitalizing on stolen government documents and selling himself and his access to those to the highest bidder.

We will Read All About It, in his New Book and maybe he can explain why so very very little of those documents have been released to the public. Couldn't be something involving personally benefiting from that, could it? Yeh, it could.

[sabrina 1]

18. Familiar talking point to try to smear journalists. But he hasn't changed, he has been a consistent

critic of Bush policies going back to 2005. Funny, the 'left' never accused him of having a 'look at me' label back then.

Too bad we have that history to look at. And even more sad that we know for sure he was the target of a smear campaign contract bid. Makes it easier to know where the smears are coming from when you have absolute proof that someone is being targeted. That kind of diminishes the effect unfortunately for whoever is behind it.

All public figures have a 'look at me' label on them, don't they? But generally journalists who report facts are not seeking attention for themselves, although when the news is threatening enough to the powerful, that is often what happens.

I'm glad to see the focus on the issues which arose during the Bush years, were never dealt with, despite efforts by great Dems like Ron Wyden eg, get the attention again that is long overdue.

I frankly don't care who exposes them and if Greenwald disappeared tomorrow, someone else will take his place. The truth will be exposed regardless of all the efforts to suppress it.

[rhett o rick]

23. Why the name calling? I mean we know you dont like him, but over and over with

the name calling. Do you think your repetition will win others over to the hate whistle-blower side?

[grasswire]

27. Kind of makes Canadians look bad, eh?

I have standing to complain about that. I have dual citizenship.

[rhett o rick]

28. I think it makes anyone that claims to be an open-minded Democrat look bad. If they have a point,

go for it. If they dont like the fact that Greenwald helped embarrass Clapper, they are certainly free to express that. But I would hope they would do it in a manner of an adult and not whine like someone in jr. high, with the name calling.

[Whisp]

35. Yes, I represent all Canadians.

I have been wondering if I should use my powers for good or for evil... and drag the whole rest of the country with me. You think I should take a poll first?



So according to some anti-authoritarians so far I can't talk about:

ACA (cuz I'm a furiner)
Can't criticize the Clintons, same
Now I have to treat Greenwald with respect! dammit! R.E.S.P.E.C.T. (but Obama can be vilified daily/hourly in much harsher language, but that's ok).

I'm sure there's more, you can let me know.

[Whisp]

34. yeh, I could ask a bunch of DUers what's with the name calling.

The Democratic President called a piece of shit used car salesman, fuck you, and having a jury let that ride... and now you are whimpering about poor GG being called names?

seriously? You can always alert, I've had other posts hidden because I wasn't treating Greenwald with the respect he so deserves (more so than Obama does, apparently) so maybe you will get lucky.

[Union Scribe]

36. Wow, still whinging about Pitt?

That's what this is still all about? Let. It. Go.

[Whisp]

40. What this is about is that Greenwald is being treated like a some Tiger Beat idol

Exactly what Obama supporters are laughed at for and it amuses me to no end that the 'whinging' is coming from the Protectorates of the Greenwald and All That is Pure and Holy and Truthful in the World.

He's making money off of Snowden's thievery - bottom line. If you can hold that kind of a character up to god status, well, I guess that's up to you, but others seeing him for what he is should not be a DU crime.

[Union Scribe]

45. "Protectorates" "god status" "DU crime"

Think you might be exaggerating the situation...just a teensy bit. And if you don't like how you're treated, why would you treat others that way?

[Whisp]

46. I guess being the Stasi Bot that I am, the authoritarian groupthinking pom pommer...

Oh, but I should play 'nice', because you know... erm, ah, it's just not FAIR!

[Union Scribe]

47. Again, I have to wonder why

if you dislike name-calling, that you revisit it not only on others but on yourself.

I did a search and, yep, one poster used the term "Stasi-bots" to describe certain vigorous Obama supporters here...8 months ago. That was a sucky thing to do. But since then, you have used the term countless times. Why would you carry that around, and spread it around? Just like you're doing now with the Pitt thread.

I'm not being critical here, shit people say often stuck on me for a good long while, but it can't help you or the board to hold onto that crap. It just sows more strife and amplifies your feeling of being under attack.

[Whisp]

48. If you were supporting that OP 'piece of shit used car salesman fuck you Pres Obama'

don't you think it's just a bit disingenuous of you to advise Me about name calling?

And if I can ask, seeing as you seem to have put yourself in some kind of authority on the subject, if I can ask what the statute of limitations are on bringing up and 'whinging' about that OP? Was it last week, one day after the event? Or anytime you feel uncomfortable about being reminded about it?

[Union Scribe]

53. FFS

I was trying to relate to you on an honest person-to-person basis that grudges don't help anyone and that I know that from my own experiences, but if you're too committed to this DU War bullshit to drop it for even a single post then you're not at a place to understand that point anyway.

And, for your files, no I didn't post in or rec Will's thread

[treestar]

60. It was insulting a public figure

So it's apt. I bet you were not in there objecting. But now when it's Glenn or Eddie you object. Double standard much? How very Republican.

[Union Scribe]

64. As usual you are entirely wrong

You can call "Eddie" whatever you wish, I don't care beyond a mild wince at how juvenile your idea of discussion is. And if you want to read something Republican here, go peruse some of your posts about offshoring US jobs.

[rhett o rick]

50. So you are rationalizing your "name calling" because other do it? You dont have to treat Greenwald

with respect and your insinuation of such is disingenuous. But name calling in post after post after post is pretty childish.

I wont alert because being childish isnt against the CS, it's just beneath what one might expect from an open-minded Democrat.

[Whisp]

51. Now who is being childish here.

Like name calling hasn't been a pastime here since day one.

Why suddenly now you object to it? Can you link me to others you scold for name calling - because there are a hella lot of us around! I haven't come across you objecting to others with name calling but I could have missed that, you can send me links? Why am I special?

Or is it that the subject at hand has you at a loss, so the next best thing is to ricochet in a different direction?

[RetroLounge]

79. Like a broken record

RL

[tritsofme]

14. Sounds like an unsuccessful PR stunt.

[sabrina 1]

22. No, it sounds like he learned from what happened to his partner who was detained as a suspected

'terrorist' for no reason other than he was Greenwald's partner. And that he learned from what happened to Bolivia's president, shamefully, among so many others.

Best way to make sure they don't do it to you is to announce those fears in advance.

He certainly KNOWS and so do we, that they were bidding on a contract to 'get him' when he was just a blogger. Anyone who had that knowledge, and it must have been quite a shock to someone like him at the time, to find out how SERIOUSLY these people take ANY criticism or reporting of facts about them.

It was in fact a very successful strategy to let the world know his plans to travel so the world would be watching. It was the only way he could hope to prevent happening to HIM what has already happened to others.

[treestar]

31. At this point, he could get a "green card" for his partner

That's persecution, no doubt!!

[sabrina 1]

39. What does that have to do with my comment? His partner was detained under the terrorist act

For what? Greenwald no doubt learned that next time they travel they need to make sure as many people as possible know about it in order to reduce the possibility of having that happen again.

Shameful what is going on frankly, and even more shameful that anyone is even trying to excuse any of it.

[treestar]

16. What drama monarchs, FFS

Puleeeeeeeeze. They are US citizens aren't they? Idiots.

Now that they have not been persecuted are they going to let up on their ridiculous claims? Not likely.

[sabrina 1]

19. Manning is a US citizen, isn't she? Are you claiming that being a US citizen is any protection

for anyone who exposes the corruption of the rich and powerful? I have a list of people who will find that claim to be very naive.

[treestar]

29. They claimed they would have trouble getting into the US

Or would be questioned upon entering it. They are US citizens, and no such thing would happen to them.

They are creating drama, and they lost. They were not questioned, so now admit they were wrong about their "persecution."

[sabrina 1]

41. The ONLY reason they were not detained is BECAUSE they let the world know they

were traveling.

Especially since BOTH have experienced what amounts to persecution already. Are you UNAWARE of their history regarding this, or just ignoring it?

Both have very good reason to fear what has happened before. This time they made it a lot more difficult for the government to harass them.

[treestar]

61. OMG

you are actually saying they were not detained because - because the government really wants to detain them (not that it has any legal grounds) and the fact they are not detained proves the government wants to detain them?

Who cares what "persecution" they suffered in the UK? What would that mean the US, of which they are citizens, would detain them? Any of us can be detained in some other country. We are foreigners there.

There were not warrants out for either of them.

Glenn has committed no crime, so why should he expect to be destained? Unless he is lying and exaggerating to play the victim? A card he has played many times before?

[sabrina 1]

63. 'why should he expect to be detained'? Well, you are asking the right question at least.

He shouldn't but he does.

Why should he have expected to have a Private Security Corp bidding on a contract to smear him and his family, right here in the US?? Got any answer for that?

Thankfully this time he made it very difficult for them to continue the harassment our Whistle Blowers and Journalists who dare to tell the truth to the people, have been subjected to.

It is shameful frankly that anyone here in this democracy should find themselves the target of a paid for smear campaign, lies, made up garbage just to try to silence them.

Greenwald knows this as do the rest of the world now, thanks to Anonymous. And so does Congress which is why some Dems are asking about the legality of all of this.

[SidDithers]

74. Obviously, the fact that they weren't detained...

is PROOF that they would have been detained if they hadn't made their travel plans public.

Pretzel-logic at it's finest.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

25. I am disappointed with the incessant name calling (idiots). I am not sure what you are going for.

Do you really think that continuously calling Greenwald names will accomplish anything? Seems a bit like jr. high.

[treestar]

30. So now they have not been persecuted are you and they going to give

up the claims of "persecution?" Not likely. In spite of the fact they were let in like any other American citizen. Still they will find a way to claim "persecution." It's insulting to people who are truly persecuted.

[rhett o rick]

32. Why is it so important to you to persecute them here in DU? Do you hate all

whistle-blowers? What specifically did Greenwald do to elicit such venomous hatred? Seriously, what specifically did he do to warrant the incessant name calling?

[treestar]

54. Those two were let into the US without trouble

I'm not the one claiming they are persecuted.

[rhett o rick]

65. You persecute Greenwald and Snowden at every opportunity. I dont think you miss a thread where

you can disparage them. Do you think your incessant disparagement will convince others?

[treestar]

66. How can I persecute them?

I don't have the power to arrest them or do anything to them. If I think they are stupid I have a first amendment right to say so. Your definition of persecution makes it very mild indeed.

[rhett o rick]

67. Ok persecute may be a little strong, but why is it necessary to disparage their

characters over and over. No one is questioning your right to do so, just your motives. Do you think you are influencing others?

You think they are stupid? Really? You judge their intelligence and disparage them for being lower than what you expect?

[sabrina 1]

43. They HAVE been persecuted. Greenwald, a blogger at the time like many people here, was the TARGET

of a bid on a contract to SMEAR HIM, to investigate his PERSONAL LIFE, 'children, wife, what church he attends, etc' in order to try to smear not just him, but any family, including CHILDREN he might have had. THAT IS SCARY to most people. What do you think they intended to do with information about where his 'children attend school, church'?? Do YOU SUPPORT that kind of creepy garbage against bloggers simply for writing about the news??

I don't know where you are coming from. You keep repeating the false meme that Greenwald has not already been persecuted. His partner also, family, has been persecuted. So have friends of other Whistle Blowers. Would you like a run down on the persecution of people who are in any way associated with Whistle Blowers? IT IS A SHAMEFUL RECORD for this country.

Greenwald has LEARNED what they are capable of and has now taken steps to pretect himself, Good for him.

But this has all happened before in history. And just like now, the journalists and whistle blowers were smeared and attacked, by those on the wrong side of history THEN too.

The good thing is most people now support those who expose criminal behavior by government agencies against the American people, around the world, not just here.

[treestar]

55. He has not

He has not been arrested, jailed, or forbidden to return to the US (in fact there is no basis for that). He has his First Amendment rights and he used them. He will not be arrested or jailed for it.

As to your determination that the First Amendment includes no push back from others, that is garbage. Other people have First Amendment rights, too. If we want to argue he's a terrible reporter, etc. that is a First Amendment right, too.

Eddie is not a whistleblower, period. Your false assignment of that term to him does not make it true.

[sabrina 1]

62. A close member of Greenwald''s family WAS detained under the 'terrorist act'. That's all people

need to know to understand why he has taken the steps, successful thankfully for now, that he has. Keep on ignoring that fact if you wish, but fortunately we are now living in a world where the MSM doesn't control the 'news' anymore and the world, even if some here are closing THEIR eyes, knows just how careful people like Greenwald need to be.

[ucrdem]

70. Miranda was detained in the UK, not the US. nt

[sabrina 1]

73. Not only he, but the president of Bolivia also, not to mention the spying on newspapers and the

demand by our closest ally who has been acting in close association with the US Govt for over a decade now, the UK, but demands that the Guardian not publish leaked material. Imagine that, censorship of the news media which thankfully caused outrage around the world.

The UK had no reason to detain anyone of these people except on behalf of the US. Do you seriously believe that people have not been following these despicable events?

The prosecution of Chelsea Manning, rather than the war criminals her leaks exposed, destroyed any credibility this country has regarding all these issues. It's pretty futile to try to deny what the rest of the world knows.

Greenwald is a target, his family, as revealed in the leaked HB Gary emails, are also, shamefully, targets. And why? For doing what all journalists should be free to do, report facts.

Hard to believe anyone would even try to defend this. Thankfully most do not.

[Whisp]

42. They could easily set up some false scammy thing and will have the believers believe.

Any little minor made up skirmish or twisty turny wording could set the whole thing afire and get GG into the Hero Spotlight again.

Shameful, but it is easily done. Maybe he can claim his passwords were stolen, or that his bla blah bla thing is missing, jsut say anything the hell he wants because GG and Snowy don't have to have proof for nuttin'. Just their word is good enough for some. Some guy at customs gave them a dirty look - help! persecution! save us - SEND MONEYYYYYYYY!

[sabrina 1]

44. You mean like the 'little skirmish' that involved Greenwald's partner on his way home, detained

under the terrorist act, simply for being Greenwald's partner, intended to intimidate and smear his family, as was outlined btw, in the leaked Anonymous emails from HB Gary.

You mean like that? And just why would you think this rather than go with the FACTS, which are, friends and family members of Whistle Blowers, like Manning eg, HAVE BEEN Persecuted. THAT is who you should be suspicious of, those who have already DONE something, not make stuff up out of nowhere about people who have never done anything of the kind.

[treestar]

56. Nailed it.

[Cha]

49. Too bad greenwald's "incredibly,

incredibly", incredibly stupid pr stunt didn't materialize.

" incredibly authoritarian incredibly wah wah wah "

[struggle4progress]

52. And coming up tomorrow, two special reports:

How keyboard warriors can prevent drone assassination of Poitras and Greenwald in Long Island

and

Does the Barrett Brown case signal yet another unconstitutional crackdown on libertarian heroin addicts who make threats against federal agents?

[treestar]

57. lol

Now that they've been let into the country (though there is no serious way to keep them out) what will they be able to fix on next to claim that the big bad US government is after them? I thought they would be sent to Gitmo!

[Blue_Tires]

68. So Greenwald as predicted threw down the gauntlet and said

"They wanted to arrest me, but the bottom line is they're chickenshit..."??

He's starting to get a God complex...

In all seriousness -- Are we ever allowed to discuss a country like Russia (or any number of others) where dissident journos are imprisoned/kidnapped/murdered?

[ucrdem]

69. Omidyar must have paid off his IRS debts.

Either that or they wisely held off.