20 ms·
Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
- cransa 13y agoThis and the fact that Obama is constantly being caught in lies says to me that the U.S. government has no clue what information Edward Snowden has passed off to Greenwald.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoThis could be unrelated to the US as details of UK spying were also released.
- icambron 13y agoAs I understand it, UK and USA spying are part of a well-connected system also including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I'm not sure there are relevant distinctions to be made here in terms of spying.
- northwest 13y agoExactly, see the "Five Eyes": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
- corin_ 13y agok-mcgrady wasn't making distinctions about spying, he was making distinctions about who decided to detain someone in a British airport - the fact that the UK has been affected by the NSA leaks means they have as much motivation here as the US does.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoExactly, that's what I meant.
- cvet 13y agoThis is a really interesting bit of speculation. Obama's consistently "just off" statements (i.e. saying an executive order that hadn't been implemented yet would have protected Snowden) make me think that Obama & his advisers doesn't have a good handle on what the NSA is doing and how the law applies to the "secret state." One could say that "Obama is lying," which may be perfectly true, but it could also be that the politicians are genuinely uninformed and/or think protections exist that don't. I could see this being the case because politicians train to talk about health care and the economy, while the details of NSA programs are rarely discussed and so politicians have little incentive to be up on the facts.
- straight_talk_2 13y agoObama is nothing, but a puppet. His masters surely have blackmail material to absolutely ruin him - say a recording of sex with an underage.
- jessaustin 13y agoI don't think it even has to be that extreme. When one starts out as a politician, even small-potatoes stuff like inflated tax exemptions would be enough to influence the ambitious. Later, once one is president, they have recordings of all the noxious shit you've done at their command. This is basic spy agency tactics. It's quite probable that Obama knows about shit the various agencies have done that would make GG's hair curl. It's also quite probable they've done much worse shit that he doesn't know about.
- cransa 13y agoThere's no way Obama didn't know. Remember that Obama just appointed James Clapper, who was caught lying to Congress about there being dragnet surveillance on the American people, to a committee to investigate the NSA and make sure these programs are in check. If he didn't know, it seems like he would be rather pissed at Clapper and reluctant to let him investigate his own agency.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this stuff anymore.
- DanBC 13y agoIt seems odd that they removed property of a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists (and their materials) had special protections under English law. Once you get in the country you have different rights (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...) (https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights)
- sbarre 13y agoIs he a journalist, or just the partner of a journalist? Maybe since they know they can't intimidate Greenwald directly they are going after his family and loved ones?
- LoganCale 13y agoI'm not sure what he does for a living, but he was in Germany to meet with Laura Poitras so he is at least somewhat involved.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoGreenwald posted an open letter and from what he says in that it doesn't seem his partner is a journalist. He was however questioned extensively on Greenwald and his reporting for The guardian. Link to the open letter: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...
- nitrogen 13y agoDid they say that the partner was carrying information to Greenwald?
- appleflaxen 13y ago> The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows What a flagrant abuse of power. It looks like their power should be reigned in. The acts are fascism. The public would pay more attention if we refer to them as such. * edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.
- omonra 13y agoDon't be shy - call it what it is - genocide.
- rorrr2 13y agofaschism = An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. Which fits the situation. Your genocide reference, an attempt to trivialize the above statement, doesn't even make sense.
- omonra 13y agoYou have to accept that not everything happening in the world you dislike qualifies for fascism, genocide or equivalence to Hitler. Overusing these labels dilutes their 'brand', and then you don't have appropriate adjectives for real cases of fascism or genocide.
- jlgreco 13y agoOver-application of "Godwin's Law" removes our ability to learn lessons from history. (Not to mention those sort of comments are nothing but unproductive comment sniping. They do absolutely nothing to further the conversation.)
- ams6110 13y agoRather than fascism per-se, actions like holding people without charge, perusing their personal belongings and papers without due process, and threatening families or associates, are the marks of totalitarianism. It exists on both the right and left ends of the political spectrum.
- bountie 13y agoSo many countries have "Detain first, something-something later" policies that it's easier to make a list of the ones who don't. Like Japan, for example, allows suspects to be arrested and detained for 20+ days without being charge http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive-detention-system-after-murder-conviction-quashed-2012-11-07 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive-detention-s...
- drunkenmasta 13y agomore of this : "But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively." less of this: "ohh noo.. Should I write my opinion on the internet? What if the NSA is watching????! Will I be put on the...the. the list???"
- ferdo 13y ago> Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles. Thievery and intimidation are good indicators of who and what we're dealing with.
- rhizome 13y agoAs IRC has taught us for two decades, there are probably few things more antagonistic than a butthurt pirate.
- Karunamon 13y agoWhat are you on about?
- rhizome 13y agoIf you're not familiar with IRC, it probably won't make much sense. It made sense to some people before the downvotes, though.
- scarmig 13y agoThat's not even coherent with the government's story. Or are you really claiming that he was detained and had thousands of dollars of equipment confiscated because Greenwald downloaded some Kylie Minogue MP3s?
- northwest 13y agoEffing cheap intimidation pricks. One day it will come back to haunt them.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y agoGreenwald just posted his own account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras, the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived in London this morning, he was detained. At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him. I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done.
- mythz 13y agoJust more evidence that the world is controlled by an oppressive totalitarian Govt that we're effectively powerless to stop. At least with these incidents we get to know which other countries are complicit and under the influence of the NSA.
- rhizome 13y agoAt least history shows us that all totalitarian governments have indeed been stopped at some point. However, history also tells us they really don't like speedbumps on their route to getting to that point.
- danenania 13y agoNo, we aren't powerless. That's why these people are so relentless in their intimidation and pursuit of more power. If they thought we were powerless, they wouldn't bother. They are afraid, and they should be. The tide can turn quickly.
- mythz 13y agoI don't think the ability to dispense fear and intimidation around the world at will is a show of fear. Our biggest hope is this becomes a national issue for the next election so we at least have the opportunity to elect the leader who respects our constitutional rights the most.
- noonespecial 13y agoAnd which one will that be? The "democrat" or the "republican"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo
- northwest 13y agoThe UK should be kicked out of the EU. Until they learn how to behave.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI'm pretty sure they'd see this as a reward.
- rmc 13y agoThe UK was part of the EU during (most of the) 1970s and 80s, when there was numerous anti-terrorism laws and abuses in Northern Ireland.
- homeomorphic 13y agoThe EU came to be in 1993 :)
- rmc 13y agoPedant. :P Yes the EU name was formed in 1993. But there was the EC or EEC before then, which was basically the same thing.
- homeomorphic 13y agoAs a citizen of a (current) EEC-non-EU member country a feel there's a huge difference. But yes, my comment was a bit pedantic :)
- DrJokepu 13y ago
- grey-area 13y agoThe salient quote from Greenwald's article on this: They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1] This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime, and why the police should never be trusted with exceptional powers simply because we feel under threat. Give them the powers, and they will be misused - in this case they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation. The security services even called Greenwald to give him the news that his partner had been detained. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...
- rolux 13y ago> they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation Intimidation is the purpose of anti-terrorism legislation. This is not an abuse of some exceptional powers -- it's their most common use.
- grey-area 13y agoI disagree. These are exceptional powers (they deliberately negate several important rights like the right to know the charges against you and have a lawyer present), and if they are being misused, they should be taken away. They are justified to the population on the basis of extreme measures for extreme opponents - if that is shown to be a smokescreen and the security services to be inveterate liars, I think the population will be far less inclined to accept any calls for special terror laws. The war on terror as an excuse just became rather more transparent.
- rolux 13y agoI'd rather see these powers as an institutionalized state of emergency. They're permanent -- there's no concept of "taking them away". And I'm not so sure about the role of the population either. It's not exactly them who can either accept or not accept the call for such laws. If you had someone, on a national ticket, who would openly call for their abolishment, matters would be different, of course. But then -- how do you get onto a national ticket? A hysterical, broken democracy is a hard thing to fix from inside.
- keithpeter 13y agoWelcome to the UK [1] https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/overview-of-terrorism-legislation/index.php https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrori... [2] https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill-tracker/past-bills/2012/protection-of-freedoms-bill-2011-12.php https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill-tracker/... I think I'll buy the Guardian tomorrow...
- jacquesm 13y agoShades of Joseph Wilson. There will be some serious fall out from this, I wonder what they were thinking when they pulled this stunt, Greenwald is not going to be intimidated.
- akg_67 13y agoI guess Greenwald, his family and friends are now on terrorist watch list. I wonder how soon Guardian will be dubbed Terrorist Organization. More and more, it appears western governments are following the policy of if you criticize us, you are terrorist.
- LoganCale 13y agoAnd as those governments do that, they lose all remaining legitimacy.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoThe great irony being that as they lose their legitimacy they're gaining power by labeling more people/activities as terrorists/terrorism.
- unreal37 13y agoThis has been true for 10 years... "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W Bush
- nsns 13y agoI think it's time we started talking of the "English-speaking axis" and its totalitarian tactics.
- jlgreco 13y agoThat is probably a tad unfair to Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, etc.
- danielharan 13y agoCanada's RCMP spied on Amnesty, the Anglican Church and the Raging Grannies. Our secret services gave their American counterparts information that led to torture of Canadian citizens and others. You think we're not part of this totalitarian movement?
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm not Canadian, but do you think that Canada is participating in a particularly more extreme manner than non-engligh speaking countries? Language is not the binding factor here.
- danielharan 13y agoUS / UK / NZ / Canada and Australia have historically cooperated on Intel. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
- jlgreco 13y agoYeah, I am not disputing that... read my above comment again.
- adaml_623 13y agoWhy do you always have to look at evidence of systematic abuse of power and government corruption and say, "Well it's not as bad as China/Russia/x"? How about you choose a line in the sand. And say that behaviour on this side is OK and on the other side it's not.
- midhir 13y agoAbout two or three years ago I was taken aside when boarding a plane at a London airport back to Belfast by a policeman and held under their terrorism legislation. Being heavily hungover from a night spent funding London's publicans, and a little nervous about flying, I just wanted to board the plane and go home. Nevertheless, I was questioned by the queue as others boarded the plane, casting nasty looks my way. The cop asked some pretty insulting, at times ignorant, questions. I guess to see if I harboured any anti-British/anti-state/anti-cop feelings. I got the impression if I lost my cool I'd be spending a lot longer in that airport. I didn't know my rights, that's my fault. Nor did I want to escalate a situation where the odds were stacked against me. I did feel pretty disgusted though, given that I'd done nothing wrong. Even now I feel like I shouldn't share this kind of thing online lest the wrong person read it. I found myself asking; why me? Was it something I said on Twitter or Facebook? Did I just look at him the wrong way without realising? Luckily he let me go after some thorough questioning and the plane waited for me (although finding my seat was basically a walk of shame). They probably do this day and daily to all kinds of people. And most would never talk about it for fear of receiving worse down the line.
- northwest 13y ago> why me? Was it something I said on Twitter or Facebook? Did I just look at him the wrong way without realising? Yeah, don't think too far - it's probably your skin color that makes you a terrrist.
- midhir 13y agoWell... It'd be hard to get much whiter than me! I guess that's my point though, that maybe this guy wasn't targeted but merely a victim of what happens every day. Being associated with the Guardian he'd have known his rights and might've had the confidence to demand them. Not sure which is worse, though.
- nitrogen 13y ago...casting nasty looks my way.... That's one of the worst parts of abuses of power; the people not being abused very quickly start to blame the victims of abuse. "You must be a bad person if they're talking to you," onlookers might be thinking to themselves.
- rmc 13y agoThe UK has a long history of abusing anti-terrorism laws. Just look at Northern Ireland.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 13y agoBecause it was killed or because it is being resubmitted very frequently from a source that is dead. That's not the first time I see an article with that many upvotes dead. Was it 'not dead' first? If so then it was a moderation action.
- aspensmonster 13y agoFor posterity's sake, the deleted comment, by qubitsam(https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=qubitsam https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=qubitsam): >Why is this submission* of Greenwald's account of the incident dead (even after it got on the front page with 25+ upvotes)? >* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6233685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6233685 I'd say it's because the submitter for the linked submission, with username cransa (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cransa https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cransa), is only 17 hours old, while the submitter of the active link is m1 (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=m1 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=m1), a user for 2 years. It is interesting that m1 hasn't commented on any submissions in months, and this submission is one of only two in his history. If he's been active recently, he's only been lurking. Of course, it shouldn't matter how old the user is or what their activity history looks like, so long as the submission isn't spam. The deaded submission clearly isn't spam and cransa's comments aren't spammy either (and that dead link is his only submission to boot), but this isn't the first time the mods have decided to give preference to links submitted by older users (edit: as well giving preference to other users with no discernible rationale for doing so). As well, in my own observations, it appears that there is a upvote/comment threshold that once crossed means the rising submission is liable to get killed. That is, if a rising submission has ~10-20 upvotes but no comments, it seems at greater risk of being deaded. And of course there's the auto-hellban for new users that decide to jump into active discussions, regardless of their comments' content. I think that's a more insidious action than any of the preceding. tl;dr: Mods = Gods (I don't know if qubitsam deleted the comment of his own accord. But assuming he didn't: Please, dear gods/mods, consider not deleting this one too.)
- 13y ago
- icambron 13y agoIf you were one of those people who still -- after all this time -- says things like, "it's OK, [insert law] is only for acts of terrorism", now would be a good time to reconsider that. Or issues of national security or state emergencies or...
- u2328 13y agoIt's mission creep. Law enforcement will always demand more power in pursuit of what they see as their goal of stopping the bad guys. Trampling all over innocent peoples' civil liberties is unfortunate to them, but they will never cease their pursuit for more power. Have you heard Ray Kelly's argument in defense of stop-and-frisk? "We do this to protect minorities! It's for their own good!" without any mention or even a passing courtesy to said minority's civil rights. Actually, I can think of one area that probably won't be receiving all the extra scrutiny that the rest of us have been enjoying in new found police state, and that's Wall Street. Someone's gotta pay for all those toys cops have been buying lately.
- boi_v2 13y agoI find awesome when this kind of thing happen, It makes pretty clear how the law is manipulated to protect those in power, the fear politics is obviously a strategy to intimidate and control the masses but fortunately, with this kind of abuses, it is becoming more and more apparently.
- Tossrock 13y agoAs bad as things are in America vis-a-vis the surveillance state, I've always thought that England is actually worse. I guess it explains why they have such a rich history of dystopian thought. When I saw the "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" poster [1] I couldn't believe it wasn't satire. [1] http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg
- alan_cx 13y agoAs a Brit, I agree. But, the scope is different. The US threatens literally every country on earth..... the UK? Ah, bless. Its almost funny, isn't it? All we can do is harass our own, in order to suck up to Uncle Sam. TBH, I find UK behavior worse. Its not on principle, its sucking up. My country turns my stomach at times, and this is one of them.
- brohee 13y agohttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-inva... Going by history, the UK is the most threatening entity ever...
- PhineasRex 13y agoOne the subject of "I can't believe it's not satire". I have always found the "If You See Something, Say Something"[1] videos both humorous and terrifying. [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jAV1dbGPB4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jAV1dbGPB4
- mathgladiator 13y agoThat post gave me chills. Chills.
- scarmig 13y agoDisgusting. If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be indicted under some terrorist act or another. And perhaps I should be: it's a deep depravity what happened here, and I'm deeply ashamed it happens anywhere, let alone in the Western world. Soon we won't be able to hold ourselves up as beacons of freedom to those in savage, barbaric places like China where all Internet usage is surveilled or Russia where you can be targeted for being gay or being a member of the press who has printed stories critical of the State.
- jonlucc 13y agoSoon? It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished, and we now know that the internet is surveilled.
- paganel 13y ago> It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished I've just finished reading a pamphlet written ~370 years ago, in 1644, called "Compassionate Samaritan", authored by a very interesting character named William Walwyn, where he had this to say about the religious establishment of his time: > There they brand men with the name of heretics, and fasten what errors they think are most hateful to the people upon those men they purpose to make odious. There they confute all opinions, and boldly they may do it, for as much as no liberty of reply or vindication in public is allowed to any, though never so much scandalized by them. And that men may not vindicate themselves by writing, their next interest is to be masters of the press, of which they are lately become by an ordinance for licensing books; which, being intended by the Parliament for a good and necessary end, namely the prohibition of all books dangerous or scandalous to the state, is become by means of the licensers, who are divines and intend their own interest, most serviceable to themselves in the stopping of honest men's writings, that nothing may come to the world's view but what they please - unless men will run the hazard of imprisonment, as I now do. So that in public they may speak what they will, write what they will, they may abuse whom they will, and nothing can be said against them. Well may they presume of making themselves masters of the people, having these foundations laid, and the people generally willing to believe they are good. Now, anyone can replace "the divines" from the (very long) quote with the current establishment and the "heretics" and "honest men" with, well, the few honest men of our times.
- shiven 13y agoPressure-intimidation tactic? Turn up the indignation up a few notches to make Greenwald trip and release more/all NSA-related information in one go, instead of the slow drip-of-death that is making them look like liars with every denial they make.
- jusben1369 13y agoI think this is a terrible mistake but I do wish he'd stop referring to himself as a journalist. He's a political protagonist using his platform for change. Journalist's don't "aggressively" report on stories. It matters because GG is now so tightly integrated into this story that we need to view his comments not as those of an impartial reporter. I doubt they think they can intimidate him. They probably are hoping they can get their hands on as yet unreleased docs to stop them being published. Either way it's a real mistake.
- arcadeparade 13y agoAll Journalism Is 'Advocacy Journalism': http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=738:advocacy-journalism&catid=51:alerts-2013&Itemid=202 http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=a...
- ferdo 13y agoOne of the functions of a free press (journalists) is exactly to aggressively report on the malintent of bureaucrats and the maladministration of government power. Actual journalism is and always has been a form of dissent.
- jusben1369 13y ago"He said he would respond by writing reports "much more aggressively than before" and would publish "many more documents". "I have lots of documents about the way the secret services operate in England. Now my focus will be there as well," he added. "I think they are going to regret what they did." - Does it sound like he is now reporting impartially or is he clearly a participant in the game with revenge on his mind?
- jacquesm 13y agoRescheduling priorities in light of developments is fair.
- ferdo 13y agoGreenwald's response: "Reuters is the absolute worst at tearing comments out of context for sensationalizing headlines. The paraphrase: Q: Will the UK's detention of your partner deter your future reporting? A: Absolutely not. If anything, it will do the opposite. It will embolden me: I have many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK, where I'll now focus more. I will be more aggressive, not less, in reporting. Q: What effect do you think they'll be of the UK's detention of your partner? A: When they do things like this, they show the world their real character. It'll backfire. I think they'll come to regret it. REUTERS: HE VOWS TO PUBLISH DOCUMENTS ABOUT UK AFTER DETENTION, SAYS THEY WILL BE SORRY!!!" http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm09tf http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm09tf
- saraid216 13y agoDoes anyone have the original article link? There are several indications in the comments that it was changed by an HN editor.
- m1 13y agoThe original article link was http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald... The title was edited by the mods at least twice.
- bwindels 13y agoOriginal link was AFAIK http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...
- andy_ppp 13y agoI will be writing to my MP about this disgraceful incident. I will be encouraging others to do the same. In fact I will door step them at their surgery and let them know that this is a line that's been massively overstepped.
- kafkaesque 13y agoAs Greenwald's response[0] suggests, it seems the only obvious way to cause any type of change (from small to moderate), seems to speak in terms of 'mafia', 'fascism', and 'police state'. Allow me to take John Stuart Mill out of context momentarily, because he was speaking with regard to Irish-English relationship (territory disputes between the two countries). But it summarises Mill's thought on why radical and extreme thought is useful: it helps bring small to moderate change because it incites dialogue. Unfortunately, this seems to be where we are at now. "...I well knew that to propose something which would be called extreme was the true way not to impede but to facilitate a more moderate experiment. [...] To induce them to approve of any change it is necessary that they should look upon it as a middle course: they think every proposal extreme and violent unless they hear of some other proposal going still farther, upon which their antipathy to extreme views may discharge itself".[1] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... [1] Autiobiography. John Stuart Mill. Penguin Classics. p. 216.
- fragsworth 13y agoBeing modest in an argument never convinces anyone of anything. However, if you appear to be seriously pissed and offended, then people tend to think for a moment about it. Why are they so angry? There must be a good reason.
- alexhawdon 13y agoDisclaimer: This is largely speculative and WHOLLY me playing devil's advocate. I do not condone this sort of behaviour by my government. Could the case be made that journalists are legitimate targets for investigation following on from Manning and Snowdon? My focus here is less on terrorism and more towards counter-intelligence. Were I a rival nation-state I would see an intelligence-gathering opportunity in what's happened: Rather than bribing/coercing people into become informants, there is now the option to invite them to 'blow the whistle' by posing as a journalist.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoI agree with what you're saying, but these were anti-terrorism laws. I see how you can play devil's advocate and make an argument of legitimacy as you have, but that doesn't legitimise using anti-terrorism laws for counter-intelligence.
- yk 13y agoIf you believe that the security interests of the state should always take precedent, then this argument could be made. However, this is of course a totalitarian position.
- eplumlee 13y agoIt seems to me that a good line to draw regarding overreach by the government is to determine who or what they're efforts are protecting. Terrorism laws were sold to us as necessary to protect the people. More recently, it seems that the efforts of the government has been to protect itself FROM the people.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jere 13y ago>The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 Yup, looks like we are officially living in some sort of Orwellian dystopia.
- jrockway 13y agoI can't think of any legitimate government questioning someone and not allowing an attorney to be present. This is really scary.
- yaddayadda 13y agoI've got a big moral problem with a country interrogating a non-citizen and not allowing an attorney to be present or consulted. More than a few years ago, I had key evidence about a felony and therefore had good reason to cooperate with the investigating officers. The initial questions were simple, factual, and related to the felony. But then the questions changed. At a certain point the questions became almost accusatory, at which point I started to ask WTF. It was then - and only then - that I was told I was a suspect and read my Miranda Rights. As knowledgeable as I was about my rights in my own country, all this still left dumbfounded. (It turned out the suspect in the felony had subsequently accused me and a colleague of a different felony. For months we were still suspects, had our own rights limited and were interrogated frequently. Thankfully, evidence came to light several months later that firmly cleared me and my colleague.) I can not imagine being in a foreign country and going through a comparable situation. Beyond the right and wrong of David Miranda being interrogated, I've got a huge moral problem with any country interrogating a non-citizen without legal counsel.
- ferdo 13y agoAnd one of the foot soldiers of the Powers That Be weighs in: "Glenn, Glenn - did you really think there'd be zero consequences for you and those close to you? I expected Ed to believe WL lies, but you?" - John Schindler (@20committee) August 18, 2013 https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257 https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257
- mrmekon 13y agoMy god. The responses are basically saying that they agree with the government kidnapping and robbing the family of a journalist in retaliation for the journalist's legal news coverage.
- ferdo 13y agoCombine those responses with Michael Grunwald's "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" and we can see the lines being drawn right before our eyes.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 13y agoFox news has it now: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa-leaks-journalist-held-for-hours/ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa-leaks-jo...
- junto 13y agoI apologise for my country's idiotic and rude behaviour. I will make sure that I vote for none of the political parties that currently run the country, nor the previous one, as none of them can be trusted. Again, sorry. Our country is being run by fuckwits. We keep voting for different parties but it doesn't seem to make a difference.... Hang on a sec....
- rdl 13y agoI'm curious exactly what you have to do in transit through the UK if detained and questioned. I'd presumably identify myself, and comply politely for a few minutes, but once it became pretty clear I was going to miss my flight, I'd want to know the various options. I have zero interest in being in the UK if in transit, so "we're going to send you back to Germany" "do it, then" is fine. Or, "you're an asshole, we're going to put you on the next flight to Brazil and never let you enter the UK" is also fine. The risk would be that "actively non-cooperative" is a sign of "is a terrorist" and then you get the free flight to Cuba. It seems obvious that a targeted person should travel with a lot of older/disposable devices full of lightly encrypted but legal "NSFL" material, like medical/battlefield/surgery photos or, depending on the country, various types of legal porn. Or perhaps Slavoj Zizek books sans title information.
- rdl 13y agoOh wow, under title 7 in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to answer questions for any reason during that 9 hour period. Looks like a total travel boycott of the UK is prudent. In addition to compelled disclosure of keys, it is worse than the US for this reason too.
- jacquesm 13y agoFunny I thought you of all people would be aware of this :) Yes, the UK is worse. I never really got why Assange went there willingly in the first place.
- rdl 13y agoI dislike the uk for purely practical reasons (expensive and wages aren't higher to compensate outside finance, not actually different enough from the US to be interesting to me). I knew about RIP but not about the border detention issue. My international flights tend to be nonstop or via very particular airports due to weapons laws (when I was flying to Iraq often), or to Asia, not Europe. I'd also probably not go via the UK due to frequent flyer status on Star Alliance which doesn't use London as a hub for flights to continental Europe as much.
- iandanforth 13y agoThis is crime. The people who authorized this should be put in jail and the officers present should at least be fired. It should not be allowed that power is so easily abused, nor should written laws be so easily twisted without fear of consequence. I believe a civil disruption of the airport specifically targeting the security apparatus would be an appropriate response. To the cynics, yes, I am idealistic and, yes I'm pretty much just venting, but damn, this is just going too far. Suggestions for constructive frustration welcome.
- _yields 13y ago> The people who authorized this should be put in jail By who ?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- awjr 13y agoI find this so hard to deal with. There's party of me screaming at the screen saying what is happening is so so so wrong more, but another part of me fears for my family. The fact I fear for my family feels like my head is above the parapet. The problem more than anything is that nobody around me seems to be that bothered about this. WTF do I do?
- efdee 13y agoWhy do you fear for your family?
- api 13y agoHN is a smart bunch, so I'm going to ask: Why do people think the security state is being rammed through with such a sense of urgency right now? Are they expecting something? A war? An economic crisis? Ecological meltdown? Invasion from outer space? I ask because I get the impression that there is a top-down (from the executive branch) full-court-press on this, and that the gloves are coming off. That leads me to wonder if there's something driving this, some sense of urgency.
- yk 13y agoIt is not pushed with especial sense of urgency, there were the crypto wars in the nineties for example[1]. On the other hand, if there is a special sense of urgency then it is probably more future shock than anything concrete. From the perspective of the old mans with pencils, suddenly you get all these leaks and you get all this computer stuff they do not really understand. So they err on the side of heavy handed security, because they do no longer trust their model of the world. [1] http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
- jacquesm 13y agoNow or never?
- gabrielrotbart 13y agoThis is a theory only and it relates to rdtsc (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6234271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6234271) reply which is inline with my own thoughts: 9/11 and the lack of civilian resistance to a lot of the government actions which followed has (IMHO) shown that they can push the envelope and encounter no outcry. 'They' have continued the push ever since. I would love to be corrected on this, but I can't think of another modern era when so much obvious, unscrupulous actions were taken by authorities and yet no grand resistance was put up.
- olefoo 13y agoI think Charles Stross said it best[1], what we have now is effectively the ancien regime pre-revolutionary state; that MUST retain absolute control, lest the natural order be shattered irretrievably. In effect, the guardians of the status quo are in full panic mode and are not necessarily reacting rationally. This is why this incident should be investigated by ( on the UK side ) a parliamentary commission, and ( on the US side ) by an independent congressional commission. 1. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-dream.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-dr...
- brohoolio 13y agoHow long until the organizations that protect us meet the definition of terrorists themselves?
- jacquesm 13y agoDepending on the country some have already reached that definition. Terrorism is a nebulous enough term that it can be made to fit a large variety of entities. That's exactly why it was chosen.
- thufry 13y agoNever. The word "terrorism" is a word used by the incumbent power to describe that which is "other." They get to decide who the word applies to and who it doesn't.
- tracker1 13y agoAs a U.S. citizen, I am more and more surprised that we aren't subject to a world wide trade embargo... We're as reliant on food grown in south/central america as in our own country, or others are reliant on us. As for tech, if China/Taiwan/Japan closed off all sales, the public would show significant outrage. I don't think most people in this country will care until they can't buy a new iPhone 6, or Galaxy S 5... What I am really surprised by is how many other countries have tolerated this so far.
- roryokane 13y agoI don’t understand why this article so carefully avoids the word “spouse”. I had no idea what kind of partner David Miranda was – business, romantic, or marriage – for most of the article. The story only hinted at the meaning in the third-to-last paragraph, about “detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists”. Was this just bad editing, or does nobody talk about “business partners” any more?
- SEMW 13y agoIt's just a style issue. From 2004 until very recently gay couples in England could only get a 'civil partnership', not a marriage; possibly because of that 'X is Y's partner' in the UK is these days understood as meaning a romantic attachment. (The business meaning still exists, but is phrased as e.g. "X and Y are both partners at Foobar LLP" rather than "X is Y's partner").
- kevinpet 13y agoI stopped reading when he implied that the US was behind it. GB is a sovereign country, and still a democracy. If you don't like the fascist laws people are voting for, stop voting for them. If you blame some outside party, you're just passing the buck and making excuses why you can't convince people to grow a spine and stop voting for the status quo -- "oh, my people would never put up with this, but the big bad USA is forcing us to". If your politicians have signed you up to be the enforcers for a little mafia protection racket, maybe they shouldn't be in office.
- cma 13y ago"US is behind it" doesn't mean "US has sole responsibility for it, letting GB off the hook".
- jusben1369 13y agoI was just saying on a post the other day how badly the government(s) are losing the PR battle. Quite amazing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584
- ad80 13y agoThey do it because they can and they learned that the public will scream for a few days and move on with their daily problems soon after. It's sad, very sad. I am pessimistic and I have an impression looking at how Obama and co. are lying without any consequences, what NSA has being doing and other recent examples, that we lost that war and we have no tools to fight against it.
- everyone 13y agoFor me the most absurd thing is that all this erosion of peoples rights and several wars have been justified by the threat of terrorism. I'm not going to even bother finding some statistics to post right now but the actual threat of terrorism is vanishingly small. For example in 2012, more Americans died crushed by their TVs or furniture than from terrorism. http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-war-conflict/statistics-on-terrorism/ http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/sta...
- noblethrasher 13y agoBe careful with this kind of argument. Among the reasons that we object to the treatment of Mr. Miranda et. al. is that it can cause a chilling effect, similar to what terrorism does. Are you prepared to argue that the threat of home furniture will ever cause a chilling effect?
- everyone 13y agoYes, I agree there is a difference between an accident and an attack. The main point I'm making is the organisations involved are clearly using terrorism as a pretext, greatly inflating its media presence. If the US for example really wanted to reduce terrorism things like better universal education and social welfare would probably really be effective as the vast majority of the US' terrorism is internal. (Killing of abortion clinic doctors and so forth)
- DigitalSea 13y agoThere's no doubt "terrorism" laws are abused on a daily basis to intimidate and scare people into being good citizens, the question here is who in the chain of command and how far up the chain did the order get carried down from and why? This whole NSA, Prism stuff is getting out of hand. It's not a nice feeling living in a world where Governments are spying on their citizens and those abroad in plain sight and knowing there is nothing anyone can do about it except go off the grid completely and well, it's 2013, it's not exactly easy to do that. I can only hope that this incident is investigated further and that we get some solid answers from those in power about why David had been detained for the legally permitted time of 9 hours without charge.
- 616c 13y agoI happened to be a fairly conservative high schooler after September 11th, living in NJ suburb. 9/11 happened in my time there. I saw smoke from the city, not quite the buildings themselves, and classmates lossed parents. We were all militant after that, and someone needed to burn. No matter how conservative my friends and I were, we saw not so long after those days Farenheit 9/11, the then controversial 9/11 documentary. No matter how hard-core Republican I was then (spending time in the Arab world later had me quickly outgrow that), I was appalled by the admission of lifer Congressman, scumbag Charles Rangel (NY - D) in his interview in the movie. He said no one he knew read the Patriot Act, not a single one, him included. No one would say no at the time to such legislation. Even as a sophomore I was appalled and said in the first real interest in non-partisan politics, we should have people removed for such incompetence. As I said I was a sophomore then, and discovered subsequently how very sophmoric I was. Nothing is more self-serving than govt in crisis, in the alia acta est way. That was the beginning of my disbelief in my government, then all government more as each year passes. Fuck them all.
- smegel 13y agoGod, imagine if Russia had done this, and how the UK/USA would have responded. The UK's credibility as a democracy is fading fast...
- fixxer 13y agoSomeone left a Gandhi quote in the comments section on the Guardian... worth rewriting here I think: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
- brokentone 13y agoSo what do we do?
- ChristianMarks 13y agoThat's the last straw for me. From now on, my private communications are between me and my deceased cat.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoif a 82 year old nun is charged terrorism than why not journalists and who ever else that's not convenient: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan-rice-sentencing_n_3246071.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan-rice-s... tomorrow this can be us just for posting the truth on the forum here folks! Wake up!
- 2a0c40 13y agoDisgusting. But may I dare to suggest that in his case it was extremely naïve, if not outright deliberate, to choose an airport in the UK to change planes?
- pinaceae 13y agoso this is one side of the story. no one knows what happened during that questioning, why amd how it started and how his partner acted. case in point, there was this guy who stripped naked at a TSA check a while back. you yourself can easily trigger an incident like this and escalate it. right now there is one side of the story, reported by a deeply involved, non-objective actor. if you ask a parent about what happened to their kid in school when it was expelled you'll also get a very subjective, partisan take. this "discussion" here smells of the reddit hivemind, quickly jumping to conclusion, throwing around terms like fascism and full of nerd bravado. nobody asks what really happened.
- pinaceae 13y agoand to the downvoters - there are now emerging articles that Miranda was carrying classified information. so yeah, more sides to the story, but who gives a shit because fascism.
- eCa 13y agoIs it terrorism to carry classified information? > Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. [1] Ok... Someone with a lot of power is too easily intimidated. [1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition
- pinaceae 13y agono, but if the person is not allowed to carry/possess it, he/she might be breaking laws. the term 'classified' exists for a reason. it is all 'ifs', which is my point - not much is known, the so called fog of war is still in full effect but people around here are already jumping to conclusions. might have been a nasty way of intimidation, might have been a security clerk reacting to standard procedure. no one here right now knows.
- sklivvz1971 13y agoWelcome to dystopia, friend. We have polonium-laden cookies, would you like some?
- w_t_payne 13y agoNot really relevant, but I am greatly amused between the current relationship that we have with our security services and the situation that Terry Gilliam portrays in his excellent film: "Brazil". After all, when the security state starts to be driven by the profit motive, were we really so naive as to expect anything less?
- asaarinen 13y agoI'd guess what they were looking for was any one of the leaked top-secret NSA documents on his laptop, the hard drive of which is being analyzed as we speak... Had they found anything during the 9 hours, I'm afraid he wouldn't be flying to Brazil - he would have been detained indefinitely as a "terror" suspect in order to intimidate Greenwald even more.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- makerops 13y agoI know it is the British who detained Mr. Miranda, and not the US but Groucho Marx would have loved the setup.
- tmslnz 13y agoUnlikely and perhaps wrong under most perspectives, but as soon as I read Greenwald's account I thought "shit, he's caught the bait". The government and those detaining his man were wholly aware of what a shitstorm this would have caused. I would have LOVED to see the alternative scenario, where Greenwald tells Miranda "Don't tell anyone else.". The police wouldn't and couldn't speak publicly, no-one gets to know about the event, the political game of those who had this brilliant idea is now in pieces. The gov's option at that point would have been to further escalate their offensive, exposing themselves even more. Instead what we got now is a lawful, yet badly-intentioned use of the law, which is grave, but likely insufficient to warrant & spark any significant tectonic movements.
- mrt0mat0 13y agoDoes anyone else see the humor in his last name being "Miranda"?
- mehmehshoe 13y ago"Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence." Wait...What? HFSMFCSWTF!