Things are getting really weird. But let’s go back to something Glenn Greenwald said in late June:
For now, Greenwald said he is taking extra precautions against the prospect that he is a target of U.S. surveillance. He said he began using encrypted email when he began communicating with Snowden in February after Snowden sent him a YouTube video walking him through the procedure to encrypt his email.
“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
So, he told the world of his intent to send encrypted documents to his domestic partner, David Miranda, and Miranda’s laptop disappeared the next day. Then Miranda traveled to Berlin and met with another of Edward Snowden’s journalist partners, Laura Poitras. On his way home from Germany to Brazil, Miranda was seized at the airport and questioned for nine hours. All his electronic equipment was confiscated. The technical charge used to detain Miranda was “Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000.”
Things have clearly escalated here pretty dramatically. Based on my Twitter feed the reaction has divided the left into two main factions. One group is outraged by the heavy-handedness of the UK government, and many of them feel like this was all done at the behest of the U.S. The other faction thinks this is all Greenwald’s fault and he never should have involved his partner.
I don’t know why this has to be an either/or debate. Can’t we agree that it’s way over the top to use a terrorism statute to detain someone who has no ties to terrorism and also fault Greenwald for senselessly telling everyone that his partner was working with him to secure stolen documents?
It was never about terrorism. That was just an excuse to invoke dictatorship.
It’s very likely that this whole thing was set up by Glen. Instead of just sending encrypted files to Miranda, he broadcasts his intention in the clear to see what happens.
Miranda’s laptop gets stolen.
Then they book Miranda to Berlin through Heathrow (after the Bolivian jet has been diverted) carrying as many electronic gadgets as possible. What else can we throw in – how about that old Newton PDA, that Atari should have been recycled years ago. Be glad to be rid of it.
And the Brits took the bait – hook line and sinker.
In that Skype call to Miranda, Glen referred to Berlin as ‘AF’ if that means anything.
Anonymous is using George W. Bush to funnel secret communications to Julian Assange.
Pass it on.
Rush Limbaugh has the Insurance encryption code in his rectum.
Your move, TSA.
Yeah, but that makes sense, so…
Look, does anyone think that Snowden didn’t break the law? He might have broken the law in a Thoreau/King/Ellsburg way, but he broke the law.
And the cop mind isn’t noted for being subtle when they are going after their guy.
and also fault Greenwald for senselessly telling everyone that his partner was working with him to secure stolen documents?
This is his M.O. isn’t it? Near as I can see it’s always all about Mr Greenwald, first, last and forever. With the possible exception of Julian Assange, I can’t think of a bigger drama queen on the Internet or in the Media.
At least for me, Greenwald’s obnoxious publicity whoring and very public persecution complex have long since diminished the substance of anything he has to say, not to mention the countless exaggerations and outright lies he has launched from his perch at “The Guardian.”
I wonder if the paper will ever wake up the the fact that he is badly damaging their brand.
At least for me, Greenwald’s obnoxious publicity whoring and very public persecution complex have long since diminished the substance of anything he has to say, not to mention the countless exaggerations and outright lies he has launched from his perch at “The Guardian.”
Can you list those exaggerations and outright lies?
This must be snark.
Greenwald makes it all about him because UK authorities abuse a terrorism law to detain his partner and confiscate his electronics equipment (mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles).
Right.
David Sirota?
Is this where I get to agree that most pushy public figures are assholes?
Is Sirota really a bigger drama queen as compared to say .. Fluffyhead?
Actually anywhere will do but this is a pretty good place.
I don’t know why this has to be an either/or debate. Can’t we agree that it’s way over the top to use a terrorism statute to detain someone who has no ties to terrorism and also fault Greenwald for senselessly telling everyone that his partner was working with him to secure stolen documents?
No!! Because some people get hurt fee-fees when the President is embarrassed. Why do you think people like Bob Cesca have a hard-on for Greenwald? Also, you notice that GG completed the sentence by saying he ended up not emailing the documents?
I don’t know that I’d call those on Greenwald’s side “the left”. Lots of them are libertarians that don’t seem to give a shit about civil liberties when it doesn’t affect white men. It’s mainly the cult of Greenwald that is outraged over this. Greenwald publicly stated that his partner would be carrying illegally obtained top secret documents, the Guardian paid for his partner’s ticket, so let’s stop pretending that his partner was an innocent bystander.
I’ll give Greenwald credit for one thing. He knows how to manipulate his cult quite well. And the Guardian is using the outrage he generates to sell newspapers. So, it is a win-win for them. Who cares if they have to bend the truth to do it right?
I’ll give Greenwald credit for one thing. He knows how to manipulate his cult quite well.
And what do you call Bob Cesca and Charles Johnson, of LGF fame?
I absolutely can’t choose between Greenwald and Cesca. No, wait, I think I could stand being in the same room with Greenwald if I had a drink. Or rather if he had a drink. I can’t see alcohol as having any effect on Cesca.
Johnson is a different universe, he’s like the Little Mermaid (the Disney one, not the real one) when she gets her new legs. Maybe he’ll be John Cole when he grows up.
I don’t know that I’d call those on Greenwald’s side “the left”. Lots of them are libertarians that don’t seem to give a shit about civil liberties when it doesn’t affect white men.
You’ve never read any of his books, have you?
Greenwald publicly stated that his partner would be carrying illegally obtained top secret documents, ..
Can you link to where he said this?
I loathe Glenn Greenwald, I loathe the guilt by association or inferences that pepper his writing. I stopped reading him a long long time ago. I’m still outraged over this.
Can’t we agree that it’s way over the top to use a terrorism statute to detain someone who has no ties to terrorism and also fault Greenwald for senselessly telling everyone that his partner was working with him to secure stolen documents?
Nuance is pretty hard to find in both the current NSA policy debate and the Greenwaldian psychodrama. But ideally, yeah.
Am I mis-reading this, or did Greenwald actually senselessly tell everyone that his partner wasn’t working with him to secure stolen documents?
Also, I can’t help but imagine that Boo would’ve said, “Can’t we agree it’s over the top to charge Ellsberg under the Espionage Act and also fault him for circulating the stolen documents at a think tank, not just to journalists?”
Damn the Greenwald Drama. It is a waste of everyone’s time. A distraction. A boondoggle. No, he didn’t break any laws – Snowden (questionably) broke the law – and it was just plain stupid to tell his partner he was sending him encrypted purloined files. Stupid. Period.
That said, “They” are displaying an acute sense of vulnerability, but haven’t quite figured out whither or no to shoot us all, or run like hell. I’m figurin’ on the former… the sound you don’t hear is me jacking a round into my well-oiled AR. Happiness is a warm gun.
Libertarians? Bah, bunch of pussy republicans smoking pot.
No fear.
… and it was just plain stupid to tell his partner he was sending him encrypted purloined files. Stupid. Period.
Did you read the above? GG says he was going to send them, but didn’t!! To me it sounds like he was going to do something then realized it would indeed be stupid to do it! It’s called reading comprehension!!!
GG says he was going to send them, but (say he) didn’t!!
FTFY.
So, not only should the British government have concluded that Miranda never received that (or any) information from Greenwald, but you know that they did conclude that.
Because reading comprehension.
Maybe GG gave them to Miranda to hold in a safe deposit box somewhere. None of us know. Has GG ever came back to Brazil or the U.S. since he went to Hong Kong? Anyone know? The point being that he didn’t do what people claimed, especially since others are using the first part of that sentence to claim that GG sent Miranda the docs via email.
None of us know, so therefore, the British must have known that Miranda had nothing notable stored on any of those drives, and were only doing this to intimidate Greenwald.
So you think they kept him for the full 9 hours because after 4 hours they thought maybe he’d Reveal All?
Do any of us doubt that they thought, ‘Well, he’s Greenwald’s partner, maybe he’s got something on him and maybe not, but we don’t need more than half-assed suspicion to hold him and confiscate his shit, so fuck him. Let’s do it.’
maybe it took 9 hours to check all the drives, I’m sure they weren’t going to let him go until they knew for sure he didn’t have anything
I think they kept him because “On your way, then” is not what counter-intelligence officials do when investigating someone for being involved in stealing classified information.
Okay, then. I guess some of us do doubt that.
Wow.
So it’s “Wow” to claim that they’d detain someone for 9 hours if they were really looking for stolen classified documents?
If they were actually looking for classified documents, they’d detain him for six hours, but at nine, they are no longer looking for classified documents.
“Wow.”
Er…o…k.
I just realized that Greenwald can basically have anyone held for 9 hours and have all their electronic equipment confiscated by tweeting that he sent them stolen documents.
Maybe he is Kayser Soze.
I guess there’s a reason that he’s a journalist and I’m a shitty blog commenter, but I’d pay money to watch him tweet that he’s thinking of emailing docs to Katy Perry.
Nah, the person would probably have to have some relationship with Greenwald.
Like being married to him.
Or having worked with him. Or emailed him. Maybe tweeted something supportive. I mean, they don’t need anything other than suspicion, right? And it strikes me as much more likely that Greenwald, the sly devil, is more likely to send shit along with people who aren’t publicly linked to him, than with people who are.
In fact, if he mentioned someone who had no interaction with him, that should definitely raise red flags.
Right, “or emailed him.”
I’m pretty sure that sending Glenn Greenwald an email would make British Intelligence think you might be a courier for him.
Hence, all of those thousands of stories that have come out about people who once sent Glenn Greenwald an email being stopped like this.
You seem to have lost the thread entirely. You do know that the person who was stopped was married to Glenn Greenwald, right?
Um, yeah. You do know that I don’t actually think that Greenwald is Soze, right?
You’re saying they can legitimately hold for 9 hours, and confiscate the electronics equipment of, any journalist’s spouse, if said journalist received leaked national security documents. That’s okay with you. Which is fair enough. I read you here and at dkos, and you strike me as smart and principled, and I don’t really doubt that if Ellesberg’s wife, who went into cowardly hiding with him for two weeks, had been treated this way, you’d have no problem with that, either. I just disagree.
You’re saying they can legitimately hold for 9 hours, and confiscate the electronics equipment of, any journalist’s spouse, if said journalist received leaked national security documents. That’s okay with you.
I was right; you have lost the thread.
I haven’t written anything about “ok.” Greenwald, and his supporters, claim that this could only possibly be an intimidation attempt, not an effort to look for documents or the encryption key.
I find that claim silly.
Did you follow this time?
I don’t know which Greenwald supporters you’re referring to. I wrote that I think it’s pretty clear that the authorities figured, ‘Well, maybe there’s something, so let’s fuck with him, because why not?’ Maybe they’d get lucky. They targeted him because of his husband.
It’s like stop and frisk. It’s not exclusively an attempt at intimidation. But denying that intimidation is involved in this is beyond naive.
On the other hand, if you are not okay with this, then yes, I lost the thread and I owe you an apology.
I don’t know if I’m “ok with this” or not. I’m trying to figure out of Glenn Greenwald’s spouse traveling with a large amount of electronics equipment raises enough legitimate red flags to warrant a search of the contents, or not.
You seemed to understand it before: I just realized that Greenwald can basically have anyone held for 9 hours and have all their electronic equipment confiscated by tweeting that he sent them stolen documents.
What happened?
Well, I should shut up, as I’m clearly offering more heat than light. But this: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/8/18/16127/7085#54
So let me get this straight: the day after Wikileaks acts on Greenwald’s threat, Greenwald’s partner is goes on an international flight carrying “various game consoles?”
I don’t do a lot of international travel. Has anyone here ever taken an international flight while carrying several game consoles?
Do game consoles that work in Europe even work in South America?
Presumably not big items like Playstation or XBox. Probably handheld devices that are self-contained and do not depend on TV-system.
Why presumably?
I’ve never heard the term “console” used to refer to a hand-held, self-contined unit with its own screen.
The infallible Wikipedia sez:
Your kidding. It’s right there in your own definition.
Items confiscated: mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
It doesn’t say video game consoles.
I stand by my assumption.
Of course you stand by your assumption. It must be “handheld game consoles” despite not saying that, because…uh…carrying “several” handheld game consoles on a week-long trip is so normal? For someone also carrying his mobile phone. And laptop.
You are a riot.
You picked the definition.
And…uh…cause it’s much more likely that he carried several larger video game consoles. In addition to carrying his mobile phone. And laptop.
Holy freak, people. Don’t any of you have teenagers? Have any of you done international travel with them, or watch other teenagers when they are traveling? Hand-held game consoles are every freaking where. With wifi giving them connectivity to the internet and each other they can be used for much more than simple game playing. Many multi-player games require checking in frequently, which is why one of the first things the kids do in an airport is open the game console and connect to wifi.
Multiple consoles are less common but certainly not rare – many games come only on one console line.
So, have you ever traveled with multiple game consoles?
I keep asking this question. People keep answering different questions instead.
Could this also describe a handheld device like a Gameboy or PSP? I like playing COD from time to time but I don’t travel with my 360.
Well, the distant descendent of the Gameboy, like the 3DS.
Here is an article on all the various handheld game consoles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console
Me? No. But I’m not a game player. (Was in my youth)
My kids – yes. My son, for example, walks around with two game devices and a smart phone. He prefers the 3D picture taking of one of the game consoles and other features of the other one. Frankly, I’m not conversant on the relative benefits of each, but I know that he’s far from alone in doing this.
Before I act too superior I should confess that I haul around 2 laptops (one work, one personal), an iPad, and a smartphone.
“Two” would not have jumped out at me. It’s that term “various.”
I’ve never heard someone who has two of something say “various.”
“We have a minivan and a small sedan.”
“We have various cars.”
Well, first, keep in mind that this is an early news report. How many early news reports have some details wrong? Or rather, have you ever known an early news report that had detail not get some of it wrong?
So we don’t really know how many. Let’s suppose there were more than two. I can think of two possibilities, the first one innocent, the second one not.
Either way, though, the game consoles by themselves are not red flags. Perhaps with other info they would be.
I have no position on whether you or Joe are right. I just want to share two bits of information.
1.
2. The police now confiscate video game consoles as a matter of routine when conducting drug-related searches.
That probably factors into it. But honestly, as I’ve posted elsewhere here, handheld game consoles are just fully functional portable computers, including full storage capability, in different form. As such, if you are confiscating computers you also confiscate game players, smart phones, tablets, etc.
Here is an article on handheld game consoles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console
Do game consoles that work in Europe even work in South America?
As long as you have the right plug/adapter why wouldn’t they?
I don’t do a lot of international travel.
Is there an adapter that allows a piece of electronics equipment designed for the American electrical grid to run on the type of power used in Europe?
It’s not hooking up to the TV that would be the problem, but plugging it into the wall.
I flew from NYC to Europe a week ago. My laptop and my Nook charge perfectly fine with an outlet adapter. My son is playing games with no problems. Most portable electronic equipment is designed to function with dual voltage/frequency. The exception is some consoles that depend on a TV for display, where proprietary specifications limit your ability to do so.
Right – you wouldn’t take an old-fashioned console along for just that reason: if it relies on an analog TV display system like NTSC or PAL or UK PAL it won’t work elsewhere.
But realistically you don’t do that anyway even domestically because fewer and fewer hotels have TVs that support those kind of connections. For that reason alone it is extremely unlikely that Miranda was carrying a full game console like a PlayStation or Wii or Xbox – it almost had to be hand-held.
As for international travel generally, electrical compatibility is 1000% simpler than it was just a decade or two ago. Just about every electronic device sold in the past 10+ years has a power supply capable of accepting inputs from 100V to 250V and to accept other power variations such as MHz. The devices themselves have converters (either external, in the power cord, or internal to the device) that auto-detects the input power and transforms the power to low voltage DC for internal use. Instead of having to haul transformers around as we used to when we demoed complex electrical equipment all you need now is a cheap plug adapter. Hotels that deal in a lot of international visitors often hand adapters out for free.
So, likely Miranda had maybe one of the line latest handheld consoles from Sony and perhaps another from Ninetendo – this wouldn’t be unusual at all. He can charge them pretty much anywhere as long as he has a plug adapter – hell, I think they can charge from a computer USB port.
From the point of view of the UK spy agency they’d of course want to confiscate those. To a connected laptop the consoles are external disk drives, and can store anything. They also can be used for email, to store and play videos, etc. Most nowadays have microphones as well. I mean, all today’s portable devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones, game consoles, etc.) can have the same functionality, the difference is in what features are emphasized.
Adaptors or equipment need to be compatible 50-60 Hz. Electro-mechanical equipment or electromotors are often build for either 50Hz or 60Hz power line frequency. US is 110 volt – 60 Hz and Europe 220/230 volt – 50 Hz. For laptops to work on wall outlet, there needs to be a switch which adapts to 110 v or 220/230 v. The adaptor for the battery charger or AC/DC converter needs to have the correct specification for the local utility.
All true, but laptops and other devices made in recent years are all able to deal with this. Pick up your laptop cord and see what it says is permissible in terms of inputs. My current one says input 100-240V and 50-60 Hz.
The key is that the modern electronics are usually DC internally so need a transformer (sometimes called a wallwart) in any event. Since that is a requirement anyway, it’s not a big deal to make it capable of dealing with a wide variety of inputs.
What’s the importance of the game consoles? Was the implication that all of these were taken from his carry-on luggage?
Lots of folks play various videogames that require different game consoles. I don’t see why that in itself is a matter of profiling. Or suspicion.
I’m not sure what the importance is but they are basically computers that can store data.
BooMan had a comment that explains it. Game consoles use encrypted communications.
Probably not even that. Game consoles are just another form of portable computer – with full storage capability of any type of file.
Lots of folks play various videogames that require different game consoles. I don’t see why that in itself is a matter of profiling. Or suspicion.
“Lots of folks” don’t get them searched at the airport, either.
OTOH, if you’re the spouse of someone who has been receiving lots of stolen classified documents, it might enter the mind of someone that you’re a wee bit more likely to have stolen classified documents than “lots of folks.”
So are people alleging that the Obama admin somehow used it’s influence over the UK govt and made them hold Greenwald’s partner? Seems to me to be more so an overreach by the UK, right?
The US and UK intelligence agencies work so closely together it could hardly be a high pay-grade decision. Yes, it is definitely overreach by the UK under a UK law that allows dramatic overreach.
I seriously doubt the U.K. even needed to be told. It’s one of those things they know with out having to be told.
.
Why does Obama hate whistleblowers and investigative journalists?
Recent diary @EuropeanTribune and covered here @BooMan …
Never again need to ask why Assange sought refuge in Ecuador Embassy in London, President Evo Morales will ask for MIG-29 travel companions, Snowdon decided to stay put in Moscow, more persons of interest will seek alternative ways to communicate.
“Of course I came across Cass Sunstein and see him as a “nutty” professor from Harvard who apparently has much influence on Barack Obama’s thinking. He also has worked in the Obama administration. I’m contemplating a diary on Barack Obama and Sunstein in relation to the harsh stance vs whistleblowers Manning/Snowden and investigative journalists.”
Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule, Obama, and Conspiracy Theories by Lisa Pease
A strange couple, Cass Sustein is married to Samantha Power, our new ambassador to the UN.
We’re still pretending that Wikileaks is about “whistleblowers?”
Even after the “Insurance” threat?
I would call the “insurance threat” a threat to blow a very loud whistle.
I think that both Manning and Snowden have shown that they have a fairly well-developed sense of the difference between military secrets and public secrets.
And Wikileaks has only what whistleblowers give them.
I would call the “insurance threat” a threat to blow a very loud whistle.
So now we’ve stripped the term of any sense of revealing wrongdoing.
A good “insurance file” would show very big wrongdoing or large and persistent systemic patterns of wrongdoing.
The story thus far has gone from the exposure that the Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress (the Verizon FISA Court order) to documentation of large numbers of abuses over two months. Every denial gets hit with new documents.
The ultimate “insurance file” would be the Pentagon Papers secret history in documentation of thirty-sixty years of agency overreach. That’s not likely what is there. But that’s what I mean by a very loud whistle.
A good “insurance file” would show very big wrongdoing or large and persistent systemic patterns of wrongdoing.
Because evidence of wrongdoing is the only thing they’d want to keep secret? Is that the assumption?
The story thus far has gone from the exposure that the Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress (the Verizon FISA Court order) to documentation of large numbers of abuses over two months. Every denial gets hit with new documents.
Actually, that story has fallen apart so comprehensively that Greenwald is now calling the report a whitewash. But you’re right – we’re onto the next thing, and nevermind that last one.
If one is a whistleblower, evidence of wrongdoing is likely all one would take. Daniel Ellsberg didn’t take RAND studies of military technical or strategic secrets he likely had access to. Snowden likely didn’t take more than what would demonstrate wrongdoing.
No, the NSA has other things classified as secret than evidence of its wrongdoing and so do other agencies. But the evidence of wrongdoing is definitely stuff that is kept secret.
The story has fallen apart so comprehensively that Senators Wyden and Udall in a public statement after Barton Gellman’s report on Thursday said that it was “only the tip of the iceberg”. There is yet that iceberg to see.
If one is a whistleblower, evidence of wrongdoing is likely all one would take.
But of course, we have the Manning and Assange cases to demonstrate that that is NOT all they would take.
You have perfectly circular logic here: What they took must be evidence of wrongdoing because they are whistle blowers, and we know that they are whistle blowers because they took evidence of wrongdoing, and we know that they only took evidence of wrongdoing because….
The story has fallen apart so comprehensively that Senators Wyden and Udall in a public statement after Barton Gellman’s report on Thursday said that it was “only the tip of the iceberg”. There is yet that iceberg to see.
Uh huh. That thing you were flogging ten seconds ago? Nevermind. You have something else right over here.
Is it getting Gingrich in here or is it just me?
I find this incident an interesting parallel with the forcing down of President Evo Morales’s plane in Vienna to prevent Edward Snowden from reaching an asylum country in South America (Ecuador, then after US diplomatic pressure, Venezuela). In that case, US NATO allies ignored international diplomatic courtesy and likely violated international law.
In this case, the US’s closest partner, the UK, which has substantial reasons of its own for vindictiveness, used its terrorism law to confiscate Mr. Miranda’s electronic equipment. Most likely to determine whether Laura Poitras was sending additional files of any kind to Glenn Greenwald. Or even the infamous “insurance key”.
IMO both incidents were either overreactions by US allies (on their own or with consultation) or both were tests of what is possible for Edward Snowden and now Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras.
In both cases, in trying to shut down the NSA scandal through usual means, the US and its allies have wound up exposing additional overreach in the conduct of international relations and law enforcement.
The attitude that this exposes is that laws don’t apply to the authorities or to the US.
Quite frankly, the White House, the US intelligence establishment, and US allies need to come to their senses and end the vindictiveness. This is the same sort of loony responses that Nixon rode into Watergate. They don’t work. And they damage Presidencies. Badly.
And quite frankly, despite what some of you might think, I very much do not want to see the Presidency of Barack Obama damaged through this continued looniness. But continuing to stonewall and play these sort of hardball games moves in that direction.
In theory Obama and his cabinet have the ability to stop this kind of thing.
But in complex organizations power doesn’t always function like it does in theory. I suspect that the military/intelligence apparatus is far beyond the point where it can be reigned in.
A couple of symbolic firings/cashiering for lying to Congress and the public could have a short-term shock effect.
You mean like the example they made of Clapper?
Where he was punished by heading up the independent thingamajiggy that would check into the not spyung on Americans flap?
Well, that gave me great hope of avoiding some nitwit President in the next 15 years slamming the jail door.
Ugh. Is it we 2016 yet. Its obvious the Obama admin will never be able to get anything done that will be satisfying to people when it comes to stuff like this. Serious question are all these things just the overflow from Bush era, national security policies? Or these all things of the Obama admin own makings?
Also if 2014 is anything like the last midterm elections then Obama will have an even worse Congress to deal with. How can ANY admin get anything done under these kind of circumstances?
Just wondering?
A lot of this stuff is overflow from the stuff the Church Committee left in place after Watergate. Most of it (and the personnel involved as well) is Bush architecture that the Obama administration carried forward.
Now is the time to deal with it before the 2014 cycle really gets going. If the White House is going to deal with it effectively, it will mean firing and cashiering Clapper and Alexander, allowing Congress to have thorough hearings into the abuses, and changing dramatically the trend to the executive accumulating more and more unilateral power.
The fundamental issues were some bad decisions during the Truman administration that created an architecture in the national security world of secrecy beyond real accountability and real consequences.
Hang the dirty laundry out; there are a lot of Republicans involved in it as well as Democrats. And have an honest debate about national security in 2014. That will fundamentally change the electoral environment.
Not that I think any of this is likely to happen because of the inertia of the conventional wisdom that is advising the President.
Well it’s not like Congress will do anything either. Most of the congress critters want to ramp this up.
They have a sweet deal at the public’s expense. Why would they want to stop it? Why did Congress in 1973 finally start investigating Richard Nixon after being complacent for most of a year? Enough information came out that they could not avoid dealing with it. And the Nixon administrations responded so hamhandedly that it created more of a news story.
Are house republicans even capable of conducting a real investigation? I suppose you could rely more on any senate committee but that seems even more likely to be subverted by the establishment.
We learn from this incident also that:
Wait wait wait – because Glenn Greenwald’s spouse (the spouse of someone famous for receiving stolen classified documents) was detained, we now know that the government is regularly detaining journalists, and significant others of journalists (no modifiers, just plain old journalists) are subject to the same treatment?
Um, ok.
Yes, this must be true, because there is nothing about Glenn Greenwald and his “journalistic” activities that sets him apart from, say, the woman who covers the Lowell City Council meetings.
C’mon Joe. A journalist who interviews members of an identified “terrorist” organization, like Spencer Ackerman has done (See comment below) should not for that particular reason be on a terrorist watch list. Nor should Laura Poitras or Glenn Greenwald. Nor should their significant others.
There have indeed been local incidents in the US of police treating folks like the woman who covers the Lowell City Council meetings as a terrorist. And detaining them for hours. And confiscating their electronic equipment for “evidence”. For being a little too honest about what the police were doing.
It has been going on for a number of years for certain journalists and receiving stolen classified documents werre not involved.
But there seems to be immunity for US media journalists who receive stolen classified documents and sit on them negotiating with the US government about what to release. (Barton Gellman, for one)
So the issue is not the receiving of something stolen or classified, is it?
By the way, freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution; classification of documents is not.
You two are talking past each other.
Personally, I think it is reasonable to suspect that Greenwald’s husband might be taking classified information from people he met in Berlin to deliver to Greenwald or some other third party. The issue is whether it is appropriate to hold him and search his effects using a terrorism statute.
I don’t think Mr. Miranda is a journalist, so he wouldn’t have any journalistic protection.
The UK also doesn’t have the same press freedoms that we have.
As to Joe’s point that you should expect the intelligence agencies to fight back, that goes without saying, but it doesn’t make it right.
Apparently Miranda is an employee of the Guardian as well, according to the Amnesty International statement in my comment below.
That’s is precisely my point. Why should the public cut them slack? That’s the way to wind up in a state run by police and security and secret government. Just yawn and go back to sleep.
I said when Snowden appeared in Hong Kong that this is huge.
Either we deal forthrightly now or some future President will slam the door shut. And 2013 makes better sense to me than late 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017.
That’s is precisely my point. Why should the public cut them slack? That’s the way to wind up in a state run by police and security and secret government. Just yawn and go back to sleep.
Is that why you’re lying about journalists – plain old journalists, nothing unique to Greenwald – being subject to such searches now?
Because it’s politically useful at this moment?
You adopt this Straussian attitude towards us little people a lot these days. I don’t like it.
C’mon Joe. A journalist who interviews members of an identified “terrorist” organization, like Spencer Ackerman has done (See comment below) should not for that particular reason be on a terrorist watch list.
Is he? The “comment below” says he thinks maybe now he will be.
Nor should…Glenn Greenwald….It has been going on for a number of years for certain journalists and receiving stolen classified documents werre not involved.
Again, Greenwald doesn’t fit into the same category. He, personally, himself, received stolen classified information. Not “interviewed terrorists.” People got stolen, classified information so they could give it to him. We know this. You know this. You laud him for this. Why are you suddenly pretending not to know this?
So the issue is not the receiving of something stolen or classified, is it? Yes, it obviously is.
Seriously, you’re sitting here, knowing what you know, pretending not to know that Glenn Greenwald has received stolen, classified documents? Why are you doing this? Do you have no respect whatsoever for your own credibility?
Investigative journalist receive stolen classified documents all the time. Where have you been? Why is that the biggest deal in the world that some government nitwit stamped Secret or Top Secret or Confidential-Internal Only on the document? If the document discloses wrongdoing, the investigative journalist used to have some degree of immunity under the First Amendment in the US.
So in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we all are to know bow down before the great god of Government Secrecy?
What are you saying, Joe?
You keep talking about my credibility. Please do tell. How am I endangering my credibility?
I see.
Since blog commenter “Tarheel Dem” has decided that there should be no ability by the government to keep anything secret, it is therefore a grotesque violation for the government to treat the stealing of classified documents as a crime.
Free Jonathon Pollard! Free Scooter Libby!
OK, fine, you consider government classification in its totality illegitimate.
Say that. Stop hiding behind these pretenses.
And you’re endangering your credibility by pretending not to know why, oh why, anyone would consider Glenn Greenwald or his close associated to be in possession of stolen classified documents.
By the way, freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution; classification of documents is not.
By the way, property rights are enshrined in the Constitution; environmental protection is not.
The pretense of Constitutional originalism is stupid even when expressed by people who do so consistently.
One other item. Encrypted email has be shut down through actions of the US authorities. Two encrypted email services have closed rather than allow general snooping of their contents by the NSA. Lavabit and Silent Circle email.
NSA computers can break any encryption. Encrypted e-mail can keep your communication safe from anyone but the NSA (and their contractors).
Chilling effect.
Minstry of Foreign Relations (Brazil): Brazilian citizen held in London
Amnesty International: UK: Detention of Guardian employee at Heathrow unlawful and unwarranted
So, he told the world of his intent to send encrypted documents to his domestic partner, David Miranda, and Miranda’s laptop disappeared the next day.
No, he told his partner via Skype.
Of course all of his communications were being tapped. Of course the laptop was stolen. Likely all ethernet packets in and out were being tapped as well and reassembled, however that process isn’t fully reliable so going after the laptop is the safest bet.
I’m not sure it really matters here, but no one cares about this NSA stuff. I mean even my political friends that are really involved don’t say anything about it and none of my regular friends even hint that they know about it.
Yeah, I’ve made the same observation. Orwell did the same – most of the people in 1984 seemed perfectly content too.
Most people in 1984 were not subject to Big Brother. They were proles.
Among people I know (I’m African American), political and not politica, the attitude is one of “the US government has been spying on the Black community since they were taping MLK’s phone and recording his conversations, heck even before that and NOW white folk are angry about the gov’t looking at their shit…well welcome to where we live white people, step right on it.”
It comes across for many non-political folks as violate “those people” civil liberties…meh, but how dare you violate “OUR” civil liberties too.
Also, we have “police states” to worry about right here on the old US-of A shores.
Apperently, Black folk cannot gather together to PAY THEIR MONEY to watch a film that involves political turmoil without there being a police presence.
Regal Movie Theater Has #TheButler Audience Antagonized by Armed Gaurds
Not only were there police officers “herding traffic” into the theatre, the was also police officer in the theatre facing the crowd.
How’s that for a police state?
I understand that experience and attitude.
I think it’s time to work together and stop the government abuse across the board.
It’s institutional, not personal. And I sympathize with the position that President Obama is in to the extent that he is getting the issue. He has to deal with the same institutions and knows that they know that non-political government employees and military can outlast any administration in the scheme of things.
The difference is that the technological capabilities now are so far beyond what J. Edgar was using to tap MLK’s phone. And the militarization of the police has accompanied this increase in technology. Black communities are catching the main force of that as well.
Thanks for putting this issue so well.
they spied on MLK’s Daddy and Granddaddy…
sent tapes to Mrs. King of MLK’s ‘extracurricular activities’
and Black folks are supposed to be ‘surprised’ about Government surveillance
REALLY?
So isn’t it time to end the overreach? Isn’t it past time to end the overreach?
Among people I know (I’m African American), political and not political, the attitude is one of “the US government has been spying on the Black community since they were taping MLK’s phone and recording his conversations, heck even before that and NOW white folk are angry about the gov’t looking at their shit…well welcome to where we live white people, step right on it.”
It’s been going on for 100+ years plus. Back at least to the 1890’s when unions started to become a thing. Can have the workers agitating now, can we? The only people shocked and surprised are either newbies or have no clue about history.
From NYT:
Britain Detains the Partner of a Reporter Tied to Leaks
Ok, serious question, why send your partner/spouse who is NOT a journalist with these documents when you know the gov’t is watching your every mood. My guess is that a non-journalist was used, 1) because maybe they figured they wouldn’t stop him, and 2) a bigger stink would be made if he did get caught/detained since he was a “civilian” and therefore a more sympathetic figure to supporters of the cause to be outraged over their treatment?
I would like to see if Greenwald verifies this assertion by the NYT. It’s not in the Guardian statement by Greenwald.
Well, yes, at a minimum Greenwald and Poitras were testing the security of means of transferring documents from Berlin to Rio. The US has used extraordinary powers to shut down electronic communication through encrypted services.
Andrew Sullivan is outraged over this treatment. The journalists who aren’t outraged by this treatment are the ones that never to investigative journalism of governments.
So what we are admitting now is that no one in the US or UK should anymore expect the rule of law to protect them if they are exposing misdeeds of their governments to the public. And certainly international law no longer exists as far as the US is concerned.
And you’re copacetic with that reality as a permanent state forever?
are the ones that never investigate the misdeeds of governments
I believe the NYT was using Greenwald as its source.
I was just posting what I read on NYT, seeing as many comments on this thread were looking for some link to the claims that Mr Miranda was carrying classified documents or some such.
My question was just one of curiosity and based on what the strategy was for using a non-jouno/”pro”.
I merely wanted to post the answer to the question some had asked about what Mr Miranda was allegedly carrying.
Of course Mr Greenwald may dispute this, but this is from the NYT article sourced to Mr Greenwald I believe
It’s become obvious throughout this whole thing, that who you believe depends more on who you support rather than who is just telling the facts.
Glenn Greewald: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
Oh, wow, you must have been posting this comment at exactly the same time Greenwald was admitting that his partner was actually carrying stolen documents.
Just rip the band aid off quickly, Tarheel. Don’t go through days of agonized walk-backs.
You were wrong. Greenwald was bullshitting. This had nothing to do with intimidation.