4 ms·
The intent was quite likely to intimidate other journalists, whistle blowers, or just people in a position to help them. It could also have been to make more pu
by andreyf 13y ago
The intent was quite likely to intimidate other journalists, whistle blowers, or just people in a position to help them. It could also have been to make more public that Greenwald has a younger gay Brazilian partner, something we gloss over in this crowd, but for which he'll be judged harashly for in other social circles.
I don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted when Miranda was detained. Whoever made the decision is playing a PR game, and wanted this to be in the news.
- Amadou 13y agoI don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted as soon as Miranda was detained. He was not, it was 3 hours later.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- joezydeco 13y agoStill, he was contacted. It's amazing that the owner of Lavabit can't even talk about what he can't talk about, yet Greenwald gets a mysterious phone call letting him know Miranda is in the process of being questioned?
- Amadou 13y agoFirst off, those two things aren't even in the same jurisdiction. But, you know that can go both ways. Maybe the caller was sympathetic to Miranda's situation but his hands were tied by the bureaucracy and all of his fellows who were less-than-sympathetic? By alerting Greenwald he let someone else without anything to lose take action. Maybe the reason he wouldn't give out his name is because he didn't want to face internal reprisals, but he had to give his serial number because of policy so he went by the book. I'm just saying that with such little information we have so far, it is a real rashomon situation. Also, hanlon's razor.
- prawn 13y agoI think it's more concerning that they're not in the same jurisdiction (technically, at least).
- andreyf 13y agoI would be very surprised if what would clearly become a high-profile detainment wasn't choreographed ahead of time to the minute, the possible routes of questioning prepared, and the timing and contents of the phone call thought through and structures to elicit particular response. These are moves in a PR campaign of the utmost importance, not some random detention decided by a low-level bureaucrat.
- Amadou 13y agoDon't make the mistake of putting the cart before the horse. Just because things worked out a certain way is not proof that the end result was intentional.
- joezydeco 13y agoThat's what puzzles me the most. It's like both sides are going through some highly planned, highly choreographed steps to do....something. Greenwald sends his husband all the way to Berlin and back to meet with Poitras? And he's allegedly (from some headlines this weekend) carrying all the Snowden documents? Wouldn't Greenwald already have this? Why would he send his husband and not some unknown person that was probably under the radar? And obviously the US/UK is trying to let the Snowden/Assange group know that their every step is being watched. I'm also guessing Poitras' safe house in Berlin is now not as safe anymore. This is like watching a spy novel unfold in real life. I can't wait for the book that eventually explains everything that is currently happening.
- andreyf 13y agoAlso a bit strange that he went from Germany to Brazil via the UK, and was allegedly carrying documents, which seems harder than sending encrypted files over the internet. Even if journalists aren't themselves technical, surely the Guardian must have some specialists that can advise them on setting up communications which snooping governments can't intercept? As for what they're trying to accomplish... that seems like a fun thing to speculate about over drinks :)
- w_t_payne 13y agoWell, it would not be a threat unless Greenwald knows about it, would it?
- rsynnott 13y ago> It could also have been to make more public that Greenwald has a younger gay Brazilian partner, something we gloss over in this crowd, but for which he'll be judged harashly for in other social circles. Well, it's not like the Guardian is really terribly popular amongst bigots, anyway... If he wrote for the Daily Mail I could see your point.
- fragsworth 13y agoThe irrational (but very real) reasoning goes like this: Glenn reported on the NSA leaks. Glenn is gay. Everything gays do is wrong, therefore reporting on the NSA leaks is wrong. Also, supporting gays is bad, because someone might think you're gay. Therefore supporting NSA leakers is bad. Where Glenn works is irrelevant. The NSA probably wants to discredit everyone involved, and garner as much support for themselves as they can.
- jacquesm 13y agoManning is gay too, doesn't seem to hurt him at all. Discrediting gay people because they are gay is losing its power even in the US.
- semanticist 13y agoThe leader of the Scottish Conservative Party is a lesbian, the Conservative government just pushed through same-sex marriage legislation. I don't think the idea 'gays are wrong' gets you very far in the UK any more. The only prominent politician I can think of who pushes that line is Nick Griffin, and he's literally a nazi.
- namdnay 13y agoFarage has started pushing that line a bit, but it seems to be more a way of pulling in some more hardline conservatives than a strong personal conviction
- rsynnott 13y agoThe "gays are evil" thing is a little bit fringe in the UK these days.