.
From NYMag:
A portion of Edward Snowden’s large pile of NSA documents has been shared by the Guardian with the Times, in hopes of avoiding publication roadblocks put up by British authorities. “We are working in partnership with the NYT and others to continue reporting these stories,” the Guardian said in a statement, despite “a climate of intense pressure from the UK government.” In America, see, we have a little thing called freedom of speech.
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger explained earlier that Britain has sought to quash its Snowden-fueled reporting on the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, its version of the NSA. “It is intended that the collaboration with the New York Times will allow the Guardian to continue exposing mass surveillance by putting the Snowden documents on GCHQ beyond government reach,” the paper explained. “Snowden is aware of the arrangement.” (The NSA leaker has previously derided the Times, and said he went to the Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald with his leaks instead, because of the paper’s past concessions to the U.S. government.)…
Security expert Bruce Schneier, in the Atlantic, offers his interpretation of “The Real, Terrifying Reason Why British Authorities Detained David Miranda“:
… This leaves one last possible explanation — those in power were angry and impulsively acted on that anger. They’re lashing out: sending a message and demonstrating that they’re not to be messed with — that the normal rules of polite conduct don’t apply to people who screw with them. That’s probably the scariest explanation of all. Both the U.S. and U.K. intelligence apparatuses have enormous money and power, and they have already demonstrated that they are willing to ignore their own laws. Once they start wielding that power unthinkingly, it could get really bad for everyone.
And it’s not going to be good for them, either. They seem to want Snowden so badly that that they’ll burn the world down to get him. But every time they act impulsively aggressive — convincing the governments of Portugal and France to block the plane carrying the Bolivian president because they thought Snowden was on it is another example — they lose a small amount of moral authority around the world, and some ability to act in the same way again. The more pressure Snowden feels, the more likely he is to give up on releasing the documents slowly and responsibly, and publish all of them at once — the same way that WikiLeaks published the U.S. State Department cables.
Just this week, the Wall Street Journal reported on some new NSA secret programs that are spying on Americans. It got the information from “interviews with current and former intelligence and government officials and people from companies that help build or operate the systems, or provide data,” not from Snowden. This is only the beginning. The media will not be intimidated. I will not be intimidated. But it scares me that the NSA is so blind that it doesn’t see it.
Suffern ACE
Sorry, but since when have normal rules applied to people screwing them?
BGinCHI
Just decided to put Coppola’s “The Conversation” on my film class syllabus this fall.
Can’t wait to see what kind of discussion it provokes.
burnspbesq
Say what, now? “Burn down the world” to get Snowden?
I must have asleep when Seal Team Six snatched him out of his hotel room in Hong Kong.
Dude, Tom Clancy writes FICTION. Get a grip on your outlandish view of your buds’ importance.
jayjaybear
Bullcrap. They detained Miranda because he was ferrying illegally-obtained classified information between Poitras and Egowald. They were ham-handed about their justification, but there WAS justification, since Egowald actually flat-out admitted that Miranda was carrying that information.
RobertDSC-iPhone 4
Funny, that exact scenario was in his last book, Threat Vector.
Villago Delenda Est
I’m afraid I have to agree with this assessment.
It explains Clapper’s ludicrous mendacity, so easily detected and exposed. There’s a certain amount of arrogance in these agencies that’s fostered by the entire “we’ve got secrets, we have the power” mentality, and it really pisses them off when any of their secrets, no matter how innocuous they might be in the overall scheme of things, are no longer secrets. For years NSA was “No Such Agency”.
Asking Portugal and France to divert a head of state’s aircraft isn’t exactly sending in Seal Team Six to the Moscow digs of Snowden, but it’s an example of pretty arrogant behavior.
Ted & Hellen
I’d like to see the Guardian, NY Times, whomever start publishing the names of the individual operatives of these government agencies such as the NSA who are making the decisions and doling out the harrassment, whatever.
It’s always annoying to me when the MSM says the “NSA” or the “FBI” or the “US GOVERNMENT” or such and such said or did this or that. No…actual people with actual names did this or that.
Naming them is a good start.
J.Ty
@Villago Delenda Est: Has it been established that that’s what happened to the flight? I’ve read conflicting reports.
Villago Delenda Est
@J.Ty:
Follow the link in Anne’s post for one report on the incident.
cathyx
@jayjaybear: For 9 hours and using the Terrorist Act?
gbear
I’m glad I’m going to be away from my computer for most of the evening.
Keith G
Anne, please, please some time soon put up a stop and frisk thread so I can be free to comment on both. I read somewhere that if one comments on a NSA thread without then commenting on a S & F thread, you are one of “those” people who are showing “that” privilege.
Anyway, the NSA drum beat continues. Give people in authority a power and they will use it. Give people in authority a power with weak (if any) meaningful oversight and it will be abused.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Ted & Hellen: There’s a practice in the intelligence community that you should probably be aware of. If you think about it real hard, you can probably figure out what that practice is, and what exactly would be the problem with your “idea”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@gbear: How can you resist a conversation on this woefully underdiscussed issue?
RP
I’m confused by the use of image from Leviathan. It almost seems like they’re trying to suggest that Hobbes was making an anti-goverment argument.
Ted & Hellen
@gbear:
Me too!
Ted & Hellen
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Why don’t you set aside your smart ass pose and share your wisdom?
For instance, the operatives who came to the Guardian offices in the UK and oversaw the computer destruction, do they not have to identify themselves? Do they not wear badges or carry ID? If not, why would anyone believe they are who they say they are?
Unlike you, I don’t know everything.
LAC
(sets up roadstide stand): nails…hammers…wood…check. Oops, forgot the garments to rend and we do need some water. Wailing can parch the throat.
Botsplainer
Dumbass leftover boomer.
If you bothered checking LGF instead accepting stupid dudebro shit sight unseen, you’d notice how much Griftwald and his embarrassed editors have been fucking up on this story.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42429_Guardians_Story_Changes_Again-_Now_They_Admit_David_Miranda_Did_Have_a_Lawyer
They propagandize wild shit in the headline and article on Page 1, and then walk it back days later, the lede buried.
It is equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, and whispering “I’m only kidding” to cover your ass during the stampede. Griftwald is a dishonest propagandist with an agenda – he and Assange are using Wikileaks, Snowden and Manning to get Republicans elected.
Again, this is stupid shit that only white guys fear.
Yatsuno
Verdant. Rubber. Inflated. Spheroids. Dammit.
Schlemizel
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Two points, never ever put Douche & Bag in the same sentence with ‘idea’. Neither has two brain cells to rub together to try and form one. Next DNFTT.
The big mistake the intel pukes are making is over reacting. Sure the wingnuts are screaming but they will shut up in 16 when they retake the White House. The libtardtarians will always scream but they are so inconsequential even the GOP ignores them except for the occasional lip service. What will get the muddled masses riled is this exact sort of sledge hammer to swat a gnat they are so fond of.
BTW, it is estimated that there are 52,852,000,000,000 emails sent a year (according to the mighty Gazoogle) if the NSA improperly collected a who 56000 last year that is 0.0000000106 of all emails. Yes, lets please lose our collective shit over this
cathyx
@Botsplainer: You sure have a heavy burden to carry to constantly have to explain and defend the illegal activities carried out by the government.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Botsplainer: The good rule with Greenwald is wait about 24-48 hours and then see what the story is. It will be widely different than the “story” he initially “reports”.
ralphb
Schneier, really stupid security writer but a fine drama queen. Should join the Guardian staff.
catclub
Relevant!
Kevin Drum – Mother Jones
| Fri Aug. 23, 2013 9:33 AM PDT
Here’s the latest on high-tech surveillance among Western intelligence agencies:
Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, The Independent has learnt.
….The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden….Information about the project was contained in 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012. Many of them came from an internal Wikipedia-style information site called GC-Wiki. Unlike the public Wikipedia, GCHQ’s wiki was generally classified Top Secret or above.
….The data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn internet project still being assembled by GCHQ. It is part of the surveillance and monitoring system, code-named “Tempora”, whose wider aim is the global interception of digital communications, such as emails and text messages. Across three sites, communications — including telephone calls — are tracked both by satellite dishes and by tapping into underwater fibre-optic cables.
ETA: Oh, the updates are that Snowden denies being the source.
So who is?
jon
Remember, fellow Betrayalists: it’s not whether Obama has failed you today, but how. Revise daily.
MomSense
@Yatsuno:
Now.
JustRuss
Would this be the same media that whines like a spoiled tween whenever its access is threatened?
Donald
@Botsplainer: “he and Assange are using Wikileaks, Snowden and Manning to get Republicans elected.”
I wonder what it’s like to live in such a tightly constricted world you can’t even imagine more than two points of view.
WereBear
@BGinCHI: That’s a good one.
And Gene Hackman, as always, is great in it.
A related film would be The Lives of Others.
Keith G
@Botsplainer: He sorta did, and yet he sorta did not (for 8 hrs anyway). It’s not as clear cut as your bold assertion implicates.
Using your frame of reference: Your bold exclamation above is rather Greenwaldian.
catclub
ON the destroyed hard disks: I could have sworn that the guy being interviewed, from the Guardian, said that they had all the same info on machines in other countries, so it was just an exercise for the UK. Just as, they could have simply wiped the disks, the MI guys insisted on the power drill destruction.
Was I mistaken?
Suffern ACE
@JustRuss: Yep. Let’s see. When Rove had CBS put Rather’s head on a pike for all to see, they pretty much shut their traps for eight years. And even after the Bushes are long gone, the press instinctively knows not to use “torture”. Yeah, we can count on them to be there for us when our country is trouble.
Hill Dweller
So, the Guardian and Snowden think using an American paper will make it easier to disseminate their info documenting the tyranny of the US government.
raven
@BGinCHI: Put Three Days of the Condor on there too.
Botsplainer
@cathyx:
Let me guess – you were at Woodstock? You walked down Haight with a flower in your hair? You sat around in the quad talking about heavy deep shit and how “the man” keeps people oppressed, while white kids of privilege nodded in agreement about how the world needs to burn?:
LOL
Suffern ACE
@Hill Dweller: Maybe they’ll have Maureen Dowd read the documents and convey what is in them.
fuckwit
And the Ron Paul For President campaign continues, with Snowden and Greenwald– an admitted fan and supporter– as its star campaign managers.
Yeah, I’m pissed off at those three clowns, but I’m also furious, FURIOUS at the Democrats for completely blowing this issue in 2007, when it was “off the table”. It shouldn’t have been off the table. It should have been front and center on the motherfucking table, with Congressional investigation after Congessional investigation, prosecutions, indictments, firings, and new legislation to rein in this crap.
Then again, we were still at war. And it is a capital offense in Washington to criticize a Republican president on anything to do with national security. Ever.
Ironically, it took Obama ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before this stuff could come out. Now we have enough relative peace that we can start questioning the military-industrial complex. Until of course they gin up another war, and then we’ll be back to “watch what you say and watch what you do” again– once Republicans are in charge again, of course.
Be aware that this, what you are reading above, is the strategy of how the Rethugs are going to expand their majority in the House and take the Senate, quite possibly putting Aqua Buddha in the White House in 2016, thus completely fucking the country over for yet another generation.
I honestly do not know what Democrats can do at this late stage in the game to get ahead of this issue. I feel like we are heading into a very dark period, yet again. The economic and environmental destruction that would result from glibertarians seizing power is too horrific to imagine. All because nobody in the media was paying attention to the EFF 10-15 years ago, and Democrats completely blew the opportunity to take leadership of the issue after winning the Congress back 7 years ago.
Bleak.
kc
@Botsplainer:
[snicker]
kc
@cathyx:
He’s up to it. Dude’s got nothing but time.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Suffern ACE: See also, too, the recent pants-wetting because Reince Priebus (!) didn’t think NBC should make a biopic about Hillary, and Chuck Todd, Candy Crowley and a bunch of others joined him on the fainting couch. Remember when Democrats raised hell about NBC reality star Donald Trump campaigning for Romney and touting birtherism and appearing on the Fox Morning Zoo every other day? And Chuck Todd’s panties got all twisted up? Me neither.
Baud
Friday night’s all right for fightin’.
Seanly
I give NYT pretty slim odds to print anything they get from the Guardian. Unless it’s fawning coverage of how wonderful the NSA is. Most American journalists are now nothing more than bootlicking toadies to the 1% and our military-industrial complex.God forbid journalists ruin their chance to be stenographers embedded in our next glorious war with Iran or N. Korea
Joey Giraud
@ralphb:
I was wondering if some anonymous newbie would do a drive-by smear of Schneier.
Thank you for moving the project forward.
Suffern ACE
@fuckwit:
The line in the sand appears to have been crossed Syria. Hopefully we’ll be too busy destroying our government over defunding our modest healthcare reform to notice. But I’m guessing that we’ll be forced to pay attention anyway.
piratedan
@catclub: they were given the option, per the Guardian story, of either turning over the hw for examination and eventual return if nothing illegal was found or destroying the drives themselves under supervision. The Miranda contingent decided upon destroying the drives. The Guardian then posted a pic of the MacBook that was “disassembled” which shows no hard drives and the component cards displayed are not all MacBook parts (allegedly).
For some reason, folks seem to think that people who are carrying illegally obtained classified documents across international borders should get a pass from customs officials (why, I’m not so sure) and for some reason don’t understand that people known to associate with them, say a spouse or a co-worker would also be subject to the same scrutiny.
Perhaps The Guardian should have purchased Mr. Miranda’s ticket to connect in some other destination other than London when looking to link up between Rio and Berlin.
Keith G
@Botsplainer: One more thing before supper.
I hope you are trolling.
Wait, of course you are, since someone believing this would have to be an excessively ignorant fuck.
gbear, I’m with you. Time for tacos and tequila.
Joey Giraud
@Keith G:
I’m still waiting for Botsplainer to explain Bots.
I’ve got a kid in robotics and darn if those things aren’t confusing.
Suffern ACE
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Honestly, is there any way we can plant these documents on Chuck Todd’s computer? I know it will cause my head to explode when the FBI comes calling to harass chuck todd. On the one hand, I can’t stand our secret security agencies and the fact that they appear to be behaving way too ballsy for our own good. On the other hand, they’d be harassing Chuck Todd. I don’t know if I’d have a problem with that.
kc
@Keith G:
He’s just a racist asshole who thinks black people have nothing to fear from government snooping.
cathyx
@Botsplainer: Yes, hippies are the enemy to an authoritarian government.
Schlemizel
Heres a good laugh – the Guardian site that had the Greenwald story on it? It is collecting information about people who visit it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-greenwald-snooped-on-everyone-2013-8
geg6
Oh Jeebus. Green balloons!
In one the great Tbogg’s last posts, he states a very good rule to follow about any NSA stories (and I would add, especially those that reference The Guardian and Greenwald). The 24 Hour Rule. A rule to live by, IMHO.
LAC
@Keith G: Just be careful not to choke on your taco while contemplating those silly ‘authoritarian” folks – it will be real tragedy to not get your input on what we should be focused on. I know my friends with college bound kids are just dying to hear from you.
Mandalay
@Anne Laurie:
Bruce Schneier is a very smart cookie, but he assumes facts not in evidence with that assertion. With a few notable exceptions those in the MSM are craven bootlickers who know their place: under the boot of the authorities and the powerful.
MGB
@kc: actually it seems that the folks who are all upset about the NSA seem to never talk about voter suppression or the taking away of abortion rights or stop and frisk. Those folks seem to always talk about the NSA being the worst thing ever. Not everyone thinks the NSA is the biggest deal. I think it’s a huge deal, but you know what? I think voter suppression is a bigger deal and I worry about people not being able to vote a bit more than the NSA. You apparently think differently. So be it. But I’ve noticed very clearly that the folks who talk about the NSA NEVER talk about vote suppression. Why is that?
Omnes Omnibus
@MGB: I talk about both. So there.
Culture of Truth
Wait, who is sending the message he is not to be messed with?
Mandalay
@ralphb:
That comment says nothing about Schneier, but volumes about you. What is your evidence that he is stupid?
MGB
@Omnes Omnibus: Touche
fuckwit
@Botsplainer:
To get Glibertarians elected, actually, though that won’t be the end result.
I doubt that Snowden/Greenwald/Assange have much love for the mainstream party– the one that got us in to the two wars that drove this surveillance explosion in the first place, the ones who authorized and justifeid and even encouraged torturing people at Guantanamo!
Seems to me Greenwald/Snowden/Assange have an ideological agenda, not a party agenda. That makes them especially useful to the Rethugs.
They are useful idiots, like the teabaggers and the fundamentalists, being manipulated to get Rethugs elected.
So, to those who are buying into the hype over this, this is how it works. You “principled” people with your high-minded ideological agenda, who want the government to stay out of your Medicare, who are terrified of Sharia law being imposed on you, who hate immigrants and gays and people of color, who stll hate the Federal government because it won at Appomatox, or who are horrified by the idea that there’s a national security apparatus (but only seem to be outraged when it’s Democrats running the black helicopters): you may not have much in common with each other, may not agree on some very important thigns, but you all are being used. You are being played. You are being manipulated by the 1%, by the military industrial complex itself, to further oppression and wreak economic and ecological destruction on you, your children, and your chldren’s children. You are being maneuvered into screwing yourself over.
You principled libertarians and fundamentalists and teabaggers will get thrown away like a toilet tissue as soon as you’re done working your ass off to get yet another corporate goon elected on the R ticket, as soon as they cement their hold on power yet again. Then you will see Supreme Court justices who rule that the 4th Amendment really doesn’t matter, and that state’s rights only apply in civil rights case but federal power trumps all in marijuana or porn cases. Then you will see Christian religious law become the law of the land, with most of the same oppression as Sharia law (if you’re female or gay, that is! If you’re male and white and straight, you got it made dudebro!).
And all the people on the left getting caught up in the pants-pissing that’s going on now, and encourage this emotional freakout, will feel just as chumped after you threw in with the “United We Stand” flagwaving bandwagon after 9/11– “this is not about politics or power, it’s not time for that, this is about America”. Yeah, bullshit. It’s always about politics, and it’s always time for that, to the people who aren’t rubes, who are pulling the fucking strings, those 1%.
I am stunned by how this freakout over the NSA reminds me of the freakout over terrorism after 9/11, and how it’s being used by the same people for the same reason: to further their own power.
Culture of Truth
The Guardian is pushing for U.S. involvement in Syria. But I suspect some of that is just to attack Obama on something.
Omnes Omnibus
@fuckwit: Yeah, fundamentally, acting in a way that gets GOP candidates elected will not decrease surveillance and privacy problems. And it will fuck up everything else. The institutional Dems are not great on civil liberties issues, but they are better the the GOP. They also are more or less sane on most other issues.
Suffern ACE
@Mandalay: O.K. but the article is fairly lousy. Once you get to the “scariest reason”, ask yourself. Is this really scary? Like new kinds of scary? Basically his explanation is “no other explanation for their actions makes sense, so they must be acting like buffoons because they are blind with rage”. Has no one actually paid any attention to how our security forces have been behaving? How they address threats these past, oh, ten years or so?
Culture of Truth
I like and respect Bruce Schneier, but he seems to be overstating the case a little here.
kc
@MGB:
That is patently untrue.
It’s specious bullshit anyway. Unless you actually think it’s reasonable for other people to blow off your concerns about voter suppression on the grounds that you don’t talk enough about NSA misconduct.
Hal
But I thought Obama was the Borg Queen who could order any Government to do what he wanted and had Glenn Greenwald’s partner detained? Am I supposed to believe the UK Government is acting on it’s own? Impossible!
BTW, why does the media keep saying they won’t be intimidated? They are reporting on the story freely. No one has stopped them, so I’m confused as to what dastardly sources are about to pull the plug. And Snowden hasn’t been given a pair of cement shoes, GG is fine and dandy in Brazil, so where’s the Pelican Brief moment with the bomb in the car?
I swear some folks watch too much tv.
Mandalay
@Villago Delenda Est:
It’s worth bearing in mind that Clapper pretty much got away with his “ludicrous mendacity” at the time, back in March when he lied to Congress. He was even strongly defended for lying by those in Congress, most notably the vile Diane Feinstein.
It was only after Snowden’s revelations that he started getting real heat, but he is still around.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yeah but you’re not one of the pants wetters about the whole thing. You don’t comment only in those threads. There is a whole contingent of commenters who only show up here when one of the pants wetting FPers put up another post about how skeery the NSA is and how Obama and his thugs are drooling to read all those emails Uncle Joe forwards to them. But not one word about the war on women and people who aren’t pasty. Both of which are about ten thousand times more frightening and destructive to the country than this shit is. I actually don’t much like the security state but it’s very much the least of my worries. But that makes me a bootlicking Obot and not-a-real-liberal to them. As does any objection to using rape analogies to describe what the NSA may or may not have been doing. Apparently, as I’ve been told at this very blog, the NSA reading Uncle Joe’s forwarded emails is ten times worse than my having been raped and I should just suck it up and quit whining about it.
Fuck these people. They aren’t my allies.
Mandalay
@MGB:
You know the corollary of that, right?
Why is that?
Omnes Omnibus
@geg6:
But don’t accuse Cole of trolling if he says that in a FP post, right?
kc
@geg6:
Sorry, but “pants wetters” is reserved for the people who are happy to give up their civil liberties to a massive police state on the off chance a terrorist might get caught.
fuckwit
@Mandalay: Yeah. Where the fuck was that unintimidated media in 2002? In 2003? In 2005? Where?
Crickets.
I cannot, will not get over the fact that the media ONLY ATTACKS DEMOCRATS. They only seem to suddenly find their balls when it’s a Dem they can attack.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well, since I never accused him of that, I’m not sure what your point is.
Keith G
@LAC: I will endeavor to keep safe, just for you and them.
Omnes Omnibus
@geg6: It was more a dig at Cole’s complaints from the other night than anything aimed at you..
kc
@fuckwit:
That is the damn truth. It’s bizarre. They kissed Bush’s ass for most of his presidency and then turned into a bunch of Heathers when Obama took office.
geg6
@kc:
Well, that wouldn’t be me, either. Not afraid of terrorists, wasn’t even on 9/11/01 or for a moment since. Nor am I in freak out mode over the infinitesimally small chance that the NSA is interested in my emails.
A swing and a miss, asshole.
Betty Cracker
@Omnes Omnibus: Me too, and if I were queen of the universe, I’d nuke the “oh sure, you care about ABC, but why don’t you ever talk about XYZ” argument from orbit.
I’m not claiming innocence; I’ve used it myself. But 98% of the time, it’s 100% bullshit. We’re allowed to have soapboxes and pet issues, is the thing, and just try to get through the fucking day without focusing on one thing to the exclusion of other equally or more important things. It isn’t humanely possible.
Botsplainer
@cathyx:
Fucking dumbass – y’all got coopted by authoritarians, let the perfect become the enemy of the good, lost all sense of proportion, grabbed idiot causes to champion (thereby becoming laughingstocks) and lost the sense of common purpose and work.
I’m damned if I can figure out the difference between you guys and the folks who brought about the major civil rights gains in the late 50s and early 60s – probably a combination of drugs and narcissism.
Mandalay
@Suffern ACE:
I agree that it wasn’t his finest effort.
That is false. He offered three alternative explanations. Your paraphrasing misrepresents what he wrote.
Schneier wasn’t writing about our security forces; he was writing about the authorities in the UK.
dollared
@Schlemizel: Yup. ,and 56,000 emails at normal volume is probably 20-30 citizens they were tracking. For example, all the Democrats on Senate Finance and House Ways & Means.
Just to see what they could blackmail to protect their budget.
Or we can run through a dozen similar scenarios. They certainly could have kept Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton out of the White House.
But you’ve got no problem with that. No sirreeeeeeeee.
Poopyman
@kc: It’s not bizarre. Simply follow the money – in this case their paychecks – back to media conglomerates whose best interests align with Republican principals, and there you are.
BillinGlendaleCA
Whenever this topic comes up, I see a great deal of discussion about what the government is doing wrong. I rarely hear any discussion about what the government should do.
dollared
@MGB: Hello. Bullshit. Do you always whine about imagined inconsistencies and injustices without any factual support whatsoever?
cathyx
@Botsplainer: I’m not actually old enough to be a hippy, but I do own Birkenstocks, so there’s that. And I am definitely not an authoritarian, like you are. I don’t need a daddy to take care of me.
Emma
@geg6: TNH rule: just because you’re on their side it doesn’t mean they’re on your side.
Words to live by these days.
ruemara
If they were so intimidated, then how are they writing articles? And the computer was not destroyed by the UK gov, it was destroyed by the Guardian, who then showed such a laughable set of components as proof, that even my naif tech self was bowled over by the incongruous sets of materials. Even WikiLeaks Press was on them for destroying the drives supposedly a month earlier.
Once again, I’m glad I read the Independent and comprehend that “Comment is Free” is an op-ed portion of the paper. Also, that if you want me to be skeptical, then why shouldn’t I be skeptical of everything? Inspection of all claims and the language used to bring it to you, is a vital element to know when you’re being manipulated vs being informed.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
as a firm believer in checks and balances, I am given pause by the fact that Michelle Bachmann served (serves?) on the House Intelligence Committee
dollared
@fuckwit: @geg6: Glad that your massive sense of victimization has overcome your desire to ally with like-minded people to solve a variety of common problems.
Do you really think most BJ’ers think the NSA is worse than vaginal probe legislation? Really? I can make the case, because the NSA can be used to establish minority rule, and vaginal probe cannot. But really – show me one comment that asserts that the NSA stuff is worse than vaginal probe/defund PPH legislation. One. BJ. comment.
But please, also provide a link to “ten times worse than being raped” comment, just so I can stop making fun of you for making shit up.
Hill Dweller
@kc:
The Bush admin courted them. Dubya gave them nicknames, and catered to their vanity.
Conversely, Obama doesn’t like nor respect them. The Beltway hates him for it.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
Ah, well, Cole. Who the hell pays attention to Cole anyway? ;-)
Keith G
@fuckwit: You are a mirror image of my Republican brother who would loudly bemoan how unfair the media was to the GOP.
Lets get past the blanket statements and the special pleadings. Things have been quite a bit more complex than that. The media has changed so much over the last decade and a half that in some cases its barely recognizable. And both parties have has their victories and failures and manipulating the media.
Lastly, I would not agree that the NSA topic has reached “freakout” or even 9/11 levels of panic. Most of the coverage has been measured and false assertions seem to be quickly corrected as better details come to light. Yes some are very adamant, but one shouldn’t spin that as a freakout just because one has different opinion. Save that trick for some other issue.
LAC
@BillinGlendaleCA: oh, honey, do you know where you are? Here, take this garment…render it… and run around screeching..careful, watch for mandalay. He takes up a lot of space. And you are fully up to speed. :)
@Keith G: yayyyyyyyyyyyyy. And for those folks who have to worry about employment? And the people struggling with their voting rights? Will you be there, letting them know what is really important? That his name is Snowden? Bless you!!!
geg6
@dollared:
Well, if you don’t know why being forced to have a foreign instrument put in your vagina (in other words, being raped) is worse than the zillion to one chance that my emails are being read by some government drone, I certainly am not going to try to convince you.
Jane2
@geg6: A corollary would be to read the source rather than someone’s interpretation which is then repeated as fact with not-very-clever references to “Griftwald” et al.
dollared
@BillinGlendaleCA:
1. Open up the details of the program and subject it to normal, 4th amendment compliant warrant and judicial oversight process.
2. Establish public procedures for reviewing for abuse and clear, painful penalties for violators that end their careers.
3. Gather less, spend less. We need those computer science grads doing productive work. We need to spend that budget on college aid grants and food stamps – and retraining programs for coal miners we need to retrain into new careers.
4. Find and prosecute past violators of civil rights, beginning with torturers.
A Humble Lurker
*stares at cartoon* I don’t get it. Actually, isn’t it sort of counter intuitive that the NSA is BLOCKING lady liberty’s nakedness? Wouldn’t it make more sense for there be someone labeled NSA maybe spying on her in the shower or something?
I haven’t got my hair on fire over the NSA, but still. If that’s what you were shooting for, you missed the target, cartoonist.
dollared
@geg6: Yes, from your narcissistic viewpoint your vagina is worth more than if every potential Democratic senatorial and presidential candidate is surveiled and then blackmailed into withdrawing, establishing permanent Republican rule. Which is a possibility under NSA processes right now.
However, I made myself clear that I am opposed to NSA and Cuccinelli equally. Is that not enough for you, or would you like to pick a fight with me, insult me and then have me loudly withdraw my support for your pet issue?
And here is what I said – and of course, you were lying or you would provide links:
kc
@geg6:
Excellent thread-derailing technique; kudos.
LAC
@dollared: and the security concerns? Are those no longer important?
dollared
@LAC: They can do all the surveillance they want overseas and they can do domestic surveillance with warrants. what am I missing? Oh, do they have to do some work and prove basis for suspicion?
Why yes, yes they do. That’s what our Constitution says. It’s a good policy.
? Martin
@dollared:
So now your issue isn’t actually with the NSA but that it’s too easy to get a warrant?
A Humble Lurker
@dollared:
Uh…?
BillinGlendaleCA
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Point taken.
@LAC: I’ve got my freshly pressed sackcloth in the bedroom closet.
LAC
@dollared: No…basically you are offering an overreach on the other side. Who are these people that make determinations about “painfully ending” the careers of “violators”? What qualifies a person as a “violator” or a torturer – I mean, we are not always going to have the obvious pol pot as a clear example. Does that include american soldiers? What about home grown plots against this country?
I am throwing these questions out there because you are top heavy on the cracking down thing and less so about balancing security issues. Because they are real. You want to throw the whole apparatus out or render it useless because it it will be thrown wide open into the hands of folks who will spend more time posting outrage and clogging the courts in this country with endless lawsuits that will make a nighmare of things. I do not relish having a security concern be left unaddressed because Corky McCrunchnuts in California decides to get off his duff and file a suit because why not and the government has to deal with that.
Now, you can say that I am pissy pants about a some phantom security breach, but I can say the same about getting worked up about 56,000 emails. There is no balance in a discussion here – we get the usual suspects going off the rails and the rest of us thinking about a manhattan.
Speaking of which…
ruemara
@A Humble Lurker: Forget it. You just have to understand that if you’re skeptical and insist on reading the actual sources and find issues with the interpretation-you’re enabling the security state and a divider since you also notice the general freak out over the NSA, but a real silence on… well, anything else. Sure, they’re walking the same direction, but we’re experiencing different roads. How’s that push to have us all call about the Leahy bill on greater oversight doing? Maybe a rational discussion of security versus security theatre? No, ok. All hail whoever is a hero today.
PopeRatzo
@jayjaybear: They detained Miranda because he was ferrying illegally-obtained classified information between Poitras and Egowald.
MGB
@kc: Meh…ok whatevs. I made an observation. So it’s what I see. Doesn’t mean it’s all of reality. Take it how you will. Clearly I’m not the only person who has noticed this.
Ms. D. Ranged in AZ
@cathyx:
In the US a person can be detained for up to 24 hours without charges being filed. This was the UK so I don’t know the law over there. Furthermore, Miranda was offered legal counsel right away, which he refused. He decided to wait until GG could send in their private attorney, which was about 8 hours later.
dollared
@? Martin: That’s the whole point, Martin. Anybody with unlimited access and $100B/year can access the data – what is required to search and review the data under the 4th amendment is a judicially reviewed warrant granted in a constitutionally sufficient legal process. That currently doesn’t exist – because of the complete secrecy and because Congress claimed the authority to allow the searches without a warrant.
MGB
@LAC: oooh…I want a Manhattan now
PopeRatzo
Hi, I just got here. Which fascistic tools of the police state are we defending today?
Extra-judicial killing? We did ubiquitous surveillance and torture already this week. How about wiretapping journalists? We haven’t done that one for a while.
You know, there something strangely exhilarating about being a part of the new “National Security Progressive” movement. It’s the new white, you know.
Ms. D. Ranged in AZ
@PopeRatzo:
Well GG admitted that he was carrying documents from Snowden. So, yes he was carrying stolen property. And just because they let him go didn’t mean he was innocent. There are tons of good reasons to let someone go who is guilty as hell. Because you want to use him to hook a bigger fish. Because you don’t want to charge him just now, but want to build a more solid case. Doesn’t mean you don’t have one, just means you like to make it rock solid for prosecution. Because it’s not politically expedient to charge him. Because the evidence that you had to support probable cause was fruit of the poison tree and although it’s good enough to detain someone, it’s not good enough to arrest and charge someone with. Because the evidence that you do have is too secret or the source that gave you the info is too secret to use them to prosecute the suspect…..I could go on and on……
Edited for spelling
dollared
@LAC: nah, you’re a pants pisser. We have no more security issues than we had in 1975 – far fewer, as a matter of fact, since there no longer are 1,000,000 soviet troops pre-staged to invade Western Europe and 100,000 megatons targeting our cities. We don’t need this infrastructure. We could just choose to be much, much smarter, and stop invading Asian countries and sending drones to kill people in their homes.
A Humble Lurker
@PopeRatzo:
That’s a lovely rendition of ‘If I only had a brain’ the content of your post is doing there.
cathyx
@Ms. D. Ranged in AZ: Show me proof where it says that he was offered counsel that he turned down. Here is mine that says otherwise.
Omnes Omnibus
@dollared: You got my vote. Now, let’s figure out how to do it. That’s where I keep bumping into the obstacles.
MGB
@dollared: this is exactly what needs to happen. So how do we get there? How do we make that happen?
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: This is from the Guardian.
Ms. D. Ranged in AZ
@cathyx:
Here Miranda himself says it–it’s buried 14 paragraphs in.
cathyx
@Ms. D. Ranged in AZ: If he wants a lawyer present it has to be their lawyer? Yes, I’d trust that too, after being treated the way he was treated. He wasn’t able to have his own lawyer present, something anyone should be granted.
LAC
@dollared: hey well thanks for engaging with me with your usual rhetorical style – dismissive and condenscending Your ideas are not realistic as written,,not in this climate. Now you can smear people as scardry cats all you want here and get the validation you need. But in order to make this work, and to win folks over outside of the BJ community, you have recognize and include a balance. I am sorry that you do not care about it, but not every American who is concerned about this s an authoritarian lemming.
PIGL
@Botsplainer: Is there some kind of a contest I don’t know about? You know, one to determine who is the very biggest jerk on the internet? ‘Cause in today’s race, I’d certainly bet on you to Show.
Seriously, time the heck out.
LAC
@MGB: they are so good aren’t they? Rye whiskey is my fav.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: Odds are the lawyer would have been the British equivalent of a public defender who would have acted in Miranda’s interests. But, in any case, you are moving the goalposts. He was offered a lawyer and declined. You had asked for a source that said he declined counsel; the source was provided. Was Miranda’s decision reasonable? Opinions may differ.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: Odds are, are they? Says you. I wouldn’t trust them. If it were on the up and up, why couldn’t he have his own lawyer? Because it wasn’t on the up and up, as was proved later.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: Would you trust a public defender? They are paid and appointed by the government.
But, again, he wasn’t denied counsel. He was offered counsel and declined it.
Jeremy
I think that we should reform the laws for the NSA in the name of transparency, but too many people are going over board with the “NSA is coming to get you” nonsense. Every country in the world has a NSA operation. We should be focused on reform and stop with the hyperbole and over the top rhetoric.
And I agree with many who say that we have more important issues. It’s funny that libertarians like GG (voted for Bush twice, supported Bush’s actions after 9/11), Assange ( the man who openly supports libertarian republicans), and Snowden don’t care about the civil liberties of the poor, women, and minorities.
Omnes Omnibus
@Omnes Omnibus: FYWP wouldn’t let me edit to add this:
FWIW I think the Terrorism Act of 2000 is a crappy law and that it was used to try to bully Miranda. This is why laws like this should not be on the book. If they are, someone will use them.
PopeRatzo
If you have to lie, you automatically lose the argument.
This is from Wikipedia:
“In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald opens with some of his own personal political history, describing his ‘pre-political’ self as neither liberal nor conservative as a whole, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals (indeed, not voting at all).”
Are you misinformed or lying?
Jeremy
@PopeRatzo: So you drone on about drones when the government in Yemen supports it. And how do you plan to take out key terrorists ? This is the question that people like you can’t answer because you believe that terrorism is not real.
James Rosen was investigated for leaking classified information and trying to influence foreign policy. The guy was not acting like a journalist when he was doing things like that. But continue to make excuses for the sorry Beltway press that carries water for the GOP.
PopeRatzo
@A Humble Lurker:
Just trying to fit in with the royalists.
Ms. D. Ranged in AZ
@cathyx: No, it says you may have counsel….the state offers one if you don’t have access to one. They offered as was proper. The point is they did the right thing to offer, he simply refused. So why complain about being without counsel if that was your choice? I’m not questioning why he refused, I’m questioning the fact that GG screamed at how his spouse didn’t have counsel without bothering to mention that he was offered it, as was proper. So several articles, in the headlines….of how he was so “abused” and then buried, days later is the truth. And this isn’t the only example of things that don’t pass the smell test. I never trust what GG says. He’s a not a journalist. He’s an advocate with a narrative to push.
Jeremy
@PopeRatzo: Sorry he didn’t vote for Bush but he did support the wars. He went along with what Bush did after 9/11 and wasn’t until the Iraq War started going South when he became Mr. Civil Liberties. The guy is a fraud.
cathyx
@Ms. D. Ranged in AZ: See my 127 comment.
As was proper, again I say, says you. We don’t have any info on the lawyer they offered. Why couldn’t he have a counsel of his choosing? In this country, you can pick the public defender or get your own.
Xecky Gilchrist
@JustRuss: That’s what I was thinking. That, and the fact that they won’t lift a finger to verify stuff, they’ll wait for sources to call them… and the fact that they fell all over themselves to lick the government’s boots when Bush was in charge and will do it again when there’s another authoritarian Republican daddy.
YAFB
@cathyx:
Do you have any evidence that he couldn’t?
In my experience, if the police offer you access to a solicitor, you get to nominate who you want. If you don’t have one, they’ll offer you a duty solicitor.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx:
First, it wasn’t in this country. Second, in the US, one does not have the right to pick one’s public defender.
cathyx
@YAFB: Yes, I do. See the link at my 127 comment.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: No link there.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: Sorry, 117.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: No. The right to pick a defender of ones own choosing.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: it’s a Miranda right, no pun intended.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: In comments 119 and 120, a link to a more recent Guardian story was provided.
YAFB
@cathyx:
Nope, you don’t have any evidence if that’ll all you’ve got. (And it was comment #117.)
(a) That’s a Greenwald article, before the 48-hour rule had elapsed.
(b) It’s an article by Greenwald, who over the 24-48 hours veered from (1) Miranda wasn’t allowed a lawyer at all to (2) he was offered a lawyer but declined to (3) he had a lawyer present for the last hour in custody.
We went though this on a thread down yonder yesterday, but you never bothered to reply, and I got the (so far) final word on a BJ thread w00t!
I pointed out to you that if the police asked Miranda if he wanted a lawyer present and he said no, then no lawyer would be able to attend him because they can’t just invite themselves in.
I surmised that maybe Miranda relented towards the end of his time in custody, which is why the final claim is that he had a lawyer present for the last hour.
I find it a bit unfathomable that Greenwald would have dispatched Miranda on this jaunt halfway across the world via Heathrow on the Guardian’s dime without having memorized the Guardian’s pack of lawyers’ phone number, but that’s far from the only thing I find unfathomable in the whole thing.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: No, it is not. One has a right to counsel. If one cannot afford counsel, counsel will be appointed. One doesn’t get to choose.
Rex Everything
@Jeremy:
As applies to GG, I don’t get this argument at all. His last book, And Justice For Some, is about how the poor are subject to an entirely different criminal justice system than the rich—in his words, that the U.S. is “shielding the most powerful elites from the consequences of their lawbreaking” while enforcing “vastly disproportionate imprisonment rates for African-Americans and Latinos.” Before the NSA-Snowden stuff he was constantly writing columns about how unfairly Moslems are treated under U.S. law.
Do you feel that people typically write books advocating for issues they “don’t care about”?
YAFB
BTW, if there’s nits to pick in the procedure (and there are bound to be given how filtered all the info we know is), one I’m not happy about is Miranda’s claim that he was offered a translator but one wasn’t provided, which if true is bad.
No idea why that would be, but maybe a Portuguese-speaking translator with adequate security clearance wasn’t available, at least not within the timeframe, or maybe they were just dicking him around.
If he’d said yes to the solicitor in the first place (which from what I’ve read of the law they weren’t obliged to offer at that stage under the Terrorism Act anyway), I’d imagine their first insistence would be that a translator be provided before questioning could proceed.
PsiFighter37
In the end, Edward Snowden traded in having a well-paying job in the US of A and a reasonably hot girlfriend who lives in Hawaii for life on the run, a home in Mother Russia, no money, and Julian ‘I may or may not have sexually assaulted anyone, but I sure as hell look creepy enough to be up for the job’ Assange as his BFF.
He’s a goddamn fucking moron from a personal standpoint.
PF37 +getting lit at Kona Brewery
Omnes Omnibus
@Omnes Omnibus: @cathyx: Go read Morris v. Slappy and U.S. v. Cronic.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: Morris v. Slappy? Come on Omnes, that’s not a real case*.
@YAFB: London traffic can be a bitch.
* My long time roommate from college, today’s his b-day, went to law school after graduation. When he was a 1L he sent me a reference to a case were the entire opinion was in rhyme.
Omnes Omnibus
@BillinGlendaleCA: Ahem.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: He could afford a counsel and he couldn’t have it. Good god!
cathyx
@YAFB: You are wrong. They offered a lawyer of their choosing, not Miranda’s choosing.
Baud
@BillinGlendaleCA:
It’s a real case, but it was overruled in Moe v. Shemp.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: You said that one has the right to pick a fucking public defender in the US. That is what I was responding to. One does not have that right here. In any case, the US is not the UK.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: You still owe me a new keyboard and diet coke.
cathyx
@PsiFighter37: Yes, someone who does something for the good of others at the sacrifice of himself is a moron. Says a lot about you.
YAFB
@cathyx:
Again, still waiting for that evidence.
cathyx
@YAFB: See the link at 117.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: Show me where I said one had a right to a pick a public defender.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: Contradicted by the August 21, 2013, Guardian article.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx:
(emphasis added)
Here.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: I see the problem. I meant, you can pick the choice of a public defender, i.e., you can pick the public defender, or you can choose your own defender.
These are semantics anyway. Why would you be ok with how this was handled? Don’t you care about your civil rights being slowly eroded?
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s not contradicted.
Here’s what Glenn Greenwald said:
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. The Guardian has the full story here.
Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian’s lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David. We spent most of that time contemplating the charges he would likely face once the 9-hour period elapsed.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: Nice tactical retreat.
I already said above that I think Miranda was being bullied. I also think that the laws need to be fixed to guarantee more privacy. At the same time, it pisses me off when people say stupid shit in support of my position. It is one of the reasons I am not a Greenwald fan. He went off half cocked about the lawyer issue. I see Greenwald as someone who does that quite frequently. It is not helpful.
cathyx
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t get the anger at Greenwald. He’s on our side, if our side is for government transparency and accountability. If you don’t like him, then I see you as an Obamabot.
PopeRatzo
@Jeremy: I see you’ve got a new set of lies about Greenwald, “not caring about rights of minorities”, etc.
I can’t keep up with your lying campaign, Jeremy. You’re clearly better at this stuff than I am. Professional, almost.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: Okay. Fine. See me as you want.
YAFB
@cathyx:
I’ve read the flipping thing three times now. You keep referring to an article that doesn’t back up your claims. It. Doesn’t Say. What. You. Keep. Claiming. It. Does.
Look, some of this might be a bit less circular if you knew a little about the law in question.
Here’s Schedule 7, which is what Miranda was detained under:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
And here’s the relevant reference to access to a solictor:
Note: “if he so requests”.
Now show me where it says that he doesn’t get to choose his own solicitor rather than having a duty solicitor.
It’s a law that sucks, to put it mildly, but it sucks for everyone who falls foul of it, not just Miranda.
Omnes Omnibus
@YAFB:
That could conceivably encompass seeing the Guardian provided lawyer within eight hours of detention.
PopeRatzo
@Omnes Omnibus: “Tactical retreat”?
I would say bringing up Glenn Greenwald when the topic is government misconduct is something like a tactical retreat.
A government that bullies, and a government that lies, and a government that keeps kill lists, and a government that tortures, and a government that continually exceeds the authority granted by even the secret, pro-government rubber-stamp court is the issue. Not Glenn Greenwald.
He’s one person, and the shitstorm of lies and attacks against him by the endless resources of the government and an aggressive army of bootlicks on the Internet is hardly any equivalence.
The “National Security Progressive” is a very interesting, very recent phenomenon. Something tells me we’re going to learn a lot more about this new species in the coming months. Especially about their full-time workdays on the Internet as human shields for Barack Obama.
Jane2
@cathyx: I like Charlie Pierce’s take…if you don’t like Greenwald, don’t invite him to dinner. Otherwise, he doesn’t matter a damn to the story…the story itself is the issue.
Omnes Omnibus
@PopeRatzo: The article on which cathyx was relying was written by Greenwald. I didn’t conjure the name out of thin air.
ETA: The piece had a fundamental error. It mattered to the story.
cathyx
@PopeRatzo: It’s like some odd love affair that they just can’t quit, no matter how bad he is for you.
YAFB
And since you can’t seem to click through the links at # 119 here’s all it says about access to a solicitor:
It’s handily vaguely phrased, but it doesn’t say he had to take a state-provided lawyer.
It does say elsewhere “During that time, he said, he was not allowed to call his partner, who is a qualified lawyer in the US …” – which isn’t surprising since a US lawyer in Brazil isn’t going to be much use for an incident in the UK at that stage and anyway his partner happened to be implicated in the allegations they were investigating.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Jane2: Okay. Greenwald can turn all his documents over to the Guardian and Laura Poitras, go sit on the beach and no one will have to talk about him or the entirely predictable results of his sending his husband through Heathrow airport to act as a courier again. You got my vote.
cathyx
@YAFB: It seems like you haven’t been following the conversation between Omnes Omnibus and me, so I won’t bother discussing this with you because I would have to repeat everything I’ve already said.
Jane2
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Speculation is not fact.
YAFB
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yes. The whole argument from civil rights activists in the UK has been that the police are allowed too much discretion in their conduct by how the law’s drafted. Aside from the provision of a translator, nobody’s proven yet that they contravened it, but we’ll see what happens in court.
It’s just galling to have all this special pleading and hair-on-fire rants about supposed victimization of a Greenwald family member when “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day, and may well be treated far worse than Miranda was without similar grounds for suspicion.
Omnes Omnibus
@YAFB: I read Falconer’s piece in the Guardian about the law. It was funny; he said that, when he was a part of drafting and passing the law, this wasn’t how they meant to be used. Well, why write so it can be used this way?
YAFB
@cathyx:
You’ve been having a different discussion with Omnes, so addressing what I’ve been explaining wouldn’t require repetition.
It seems to me you’re totally out of your depth discussing UK law, can’t back up your claims, but are relying solely on a cryptic few words from an early Greenwald article which was contradicted by later ones in the Guardian, and are looking for a way to cover your embarrassment.
It’s a bit like your never bothering to reply to (or possibly even read) my comment # 80 the other day which sought to explore some of these issues you were mistaken about.
Mandalay
@YAFB:
Do you have a link for that claim? I had read several sources stating that detaining someone for the maximum of nine hours under that law was highly unusual, but I haven’t read anywhere that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day.
The law itself is broad, but my understanding is that the provision under which Miranda was detained (whereby anyone could be detained for up to nine hours without any justification needed) was only rarely used.
YAFB
@Omnes Omnibus:
Rentaquote supposed lefty Labour MP Keith Vaz was quoted early on after the detention as being shocked – SHOCKED, I tell you – that detainees could have their property confiscated for up to 7 days.
They really should read the legislation they pass and apply a little imagination. It’s not as if plenty of folks weren’t yelling that it was a bad law when they pushed it through.
One of the most depressing things about Labour’s recent terms in office was that they were absolutely appalling across the board on civil liberties. This may end up with a Tory(/Lib Dem) government sorting out one of their major cockups. Jeez.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Not in defense of him, but the law was directly aimed at addressing terrorism in Britain arising from the (Irish) Troubles, and was originally passed in 2000, prior to 9/11.
Still, the law’s author should be asked to explain why the special provision (detain anyone for 9 hours for no reason) was “valid” for the troubles, but not for contemporary terrorism. It’s seems as valid or not in either scenario.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
The nine hours is anomalous, but we don’t know what happened behind the scenes to account for that.
Google “Terrorism Act Schedule 7 abuses” or somesuch. You’ll find plenty (though you’ll now have to dig quite a few pages down to get beyond the Miranda results …).
Here’s a random article from last year:
http://netpol.org/2012/12/12/schedule-7-terror-laws-used-to-interrogate-activists/
In fact, if you’re feeling lazy, the Wikipedia article on the TA 2000 as a whole (there’s also a TA 2006 which isn’t any better) gives a selective little roundup of some abuses:
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Well, that is my problem with any of these laws. If a power is given to a executive agency, it will use that power. If you don’t trust someone with the power, don’t put it in the law. If you are okay with it because your guy is in power, imagine what your opponent might do with it. Here in the the US, the AUMF and the PATRIOT Act are the same things. They give a bunch of powers to the executive that it should not have and then they provide no meaningful oversight. It is fucking appalling.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
It’s not supposed to be for no reason, it’s intended to be used to establish whether any offenses have been committed – which won’t become clear till this gets through the courts.
We’ve already got a review that was under way before this kerfuffle anyhow, and it looks like that limit may be reduced to six hours at least. The whole thing really needs scrapped and redrafted with clearer heads prevailing.
PsiFighter37
@cathyx: No, he’s a fucking moron. Man does not give a shit about the bigger cause; he just wants attention from weak-minded fools like yourself.
cathyx
@PsiFighter37: Yeah, that’s why he did what he did. I don’t like to call anyone a name, but you are such an idiot, I can’t help myself.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
If you’re still here, it took a while to remember what it was called, but here’s a whole site dedicated to Schedule 7 abuses:
http://schedule7stories.com/
Mandalay
@YAFB: None of that supports your bold claim that:
Again, can you show the evidence for your claim, or did you just make it up?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Would you be happier if YAFB had said “frequently” instead of “pretty much every day?”
YAFB
@Mandalay:
Did you post that before I gave the link to Schedule 7 Stories? Otherwise, I just don’t think you want to hear about all this for some reason, and I question your commitment to civil liberties that don’t involve a certain journalist if you’re still skeptical.
Here’s just a couple of stories from that site (can’t link to too many or I’ll end up in moderation):
Now in view of all this, maybe somebody can explain to me why on earth a prominent civil rights lawyer working for a newspaper that’s railed long and hard about these issues would agree to routing his partner via Heathrow?
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’d be happier if posters would substantiate or retract claims they make when asked, instead of moving the goalposts.
Here is some hard data on being stopped under Schedule 7 in the UK:
So at least 97% of those stopped were detained for less than one hour, and Miranda’s experience of being detained for 9 hours was unusual. I don’t think that really supports the claim that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day, but YMMV. Maybe the poster has some more persuasive data.
My issue is not with the stoppages per se. It is the treatment and lack of rights of those who are detained for more than a brief period. Miranda’s treatment (based only on his description) was not good.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: It appears that you then may be talking past one another. YAFB appears to be talking about people being fucked with in general while you seem focused on the time issue.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
I’m beginning to question your good faith.
I already said above that the nine hours was anomalous.
But we don’t know what might have been going on during that time. I even went so far as to say they might have just been dicking him around, but I can envisage a few complications that could extend the period (the amount of electronic paraphernalia, the language barrier, possible obstructiveness from a no doubt scared Miranda, waiting for lawyers to finally get access and do their thing, sheer incompetence, taking their time just because they could, liaison with other agencies …).
You asked for substantiation of my claim that numerous people are practically daily jiggered around by the Schedule. I’ve given it to you. If you don’t want to take it in, there’s nothing more I can do for you. I’m just surprised you’re not outraged that we have such a punitive Act that inconveniences and frightens many. Maybe I shouldn’t be.
Mandalay
@YAFB:
Your purity tests are of no interest to me, but I directly question your honesty. You posted a claim, and have not posted any evidence to support it when challenged. You are a bullshitter.
I had posted a couple of days ago that I thought the whole thing might be a deliberate ploy by Greenwald and Miranda. They played the UK authorities like a cheap banjo, and got exactly the result they wanted.
Now for the third time, where is the evidence that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day”? How do you know it is “ordinary” people? How are they “jiggered about”? Where are your links that provide hard numbers?
I think you just made that up because it seemed a plausible claim to make. You provide links to a few extreme cases such as Miranda’s, but where is the evidence that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day”? Put up or shut up.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
But where is the evidence that people are being fucked with in general? I keep asking for evidence for that, and get none. Instead I am given links to the few outlier cases which don’t substantiate the claim that was made.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Jesus fucking Christ, YAFB posted a link to a website with a series of stories. Do you want statistics?
YAFB
LOL Thank you for dispelling any doubts that might have lingered about your good faith.
You don’t give a fuck about the descriptions of what you so offhandedly dismiss as “a few extreme cases” of outrages I’ve linked to and you probably haven’t even bothered reading any of them because they don’t fit whatever your agenda is. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.
I gave you some examples from Wikipedia of a number of people being arrested for simple public photography etc. – you know, “ordinary” people going about their everyday lives – under the TA 2000. For Schedule 7 specifically, I’ve given you a link to a site that gathers many accounts from those who’ve been victimized by it, and that is inevitably just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sorry their plights don’t meet your standards for concern, whatever they are. I’m not going to sit here all night Googling examples because you’ll never be satisfied with the fucking evidence anyway.
It’s a widely abused law. If you’d done the Google search I suggested earlier, you’d see articles etc. about it stretching back years – many in the Guardian. It’s legendary and notorious over here. We’re hoping it’ll get reviewed, but most of us aren’t holding our breath for major improvements.
YAFB
@Omnes Omnibus:
Heh. Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yes, of course I want fucking statistics. How else can you possibly support the claim that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day”? Jesus fucking Christ.
The links provided do not support the claim, and a few outlier cases don’t support the claim either. I have posted hard numbers that suggest the claim is false and the poster has failed to post any links to support the claim. The poster just made it up.
Jon H
@catclub:
Why should anyone in the US give a shit about a signals intelligence agency doing signals intelligence in the Middle East?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: What are you aiming for here? The law is okay in general and Miranda was specifically fucked over? I think it is a fucked up law and I have seen and read enough anecdotal evidence to support a view that the law is easy to abuse. A law that is easy to abuse is a bad law.
This is a blog not a peer reviewed journal. Plus, testimonial evidence is sufficient for courts.
YAFB
@Omnes Omnibus:
Thank you. As a Brit, that’s what gets me annoyed about pseudo-skepical arseholes like Mandalay here who don’t see the bigger picture we actually live with while banging on about state surveillance.
This law has in particular been used to target activists as well as people with the “wrong” sorts of complexions and just anyone some overreaching bored cop feels like fucking with for some weird reason.
Since Mandalay accepts the possibility that Greenwald deliberately set all this up, there doesn’t seem much reason for outrage about the Miranda detention since they evidently got what they wanted and our security services handed it to them on a plate. So that’s done, then, and we don’t need to hear about it any more and can focus on other things.
There are plenty of people just trying to go about their everyday lives or get from A to B who are victimized under the wider TA 2000 and Schedule 7.
When somebody next says this isn’t all about Greenwald, just recall this exchange.
Mandalay
@YAFB:
Their plight is a diversion from you with respect to your claim.
You have still not provided a shred of evidence that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day”? If you think the numbers that prove that claim are in the links you see then post the data, but discussing individual cases is irrelevant. You have been given multiple opportunities, and you allege that it’s all there in the links, but it isn’t. Why are you so reluctant to provide direct quotes from your links if they truly support your claim?
Why not admit that you just made it up?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: WTF? Really, where are you try to go with this?
YAFB
@Mandalay:
If you think I’m going to spend all night here copying and pasting accounts on top of the two I’ve already excerpted above that you can easily read for yourself if you just bother to click through to that site just to inevitably have you turn around and dismiss them anyway, you’re fucking kidding yourself.
I’m going to leave it to those who blow in here after me and read all this (good grief) to make their minds up about who’s been arguing in good faith and who’s just being a pig-headed arsehole who won’t accept eyewitness accounts as evidence and has shifted his own goalposts to somewhere in the region of his upper colon.
Just because somebody’s wrong on the internet doesn’t make it my job to set them right. Hell, I gave it a shot, but you are the epitome of epistemic closure.
YAFB
@Omnes Omnibus:
Like I said, it’s Chinatown. It’s been enlightening, though, in a sick sort of way.
Night night, mate. Sweet dreams.
Omnes Omnibus
@YAFB: Cheers.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I want the poster to support their claim that “ordinary” people are jiggered about by this same law pretty much every day”. I was highly skeptical of that claim when I read it, and the poster’s refusal to post any numbers supporting his/her claim strongly makes me think they just fabricated it. Doubly so when I posted that 97% of detentions under Schedule are under 1 hour.
Some law is clearly needed for the special case of transit passengers, and the current law clearly needs review. It is addressing issues and technology that did not even exist when the law was passed. And, as I posted the other day, there are some nasty weasel words in Schedule 7.
But for all of that, I can’t find any evidence that the provisions of Schedule 7 are being massively abused on the level claimed by the poster.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus: WTF?
Outlier cases like Miranda’s et al do not prove wholesale abuse. Not a hard concept.
YAFB
@Mandalay:
Christ, I was out of here, but that can’t be allowed to stand unchallenged without joining the dots for the hard of thinking.
Here’s Liberty’s take (the UK’s rough equivalent of the ACLU):
But Liberty obviously have no idea what they’re talking about and are just trying to distract from Miranda’s victimhood, along with the Guardian and a host of other UK individuals, organizations, politicians, you name it for whom Schedule 7 wasn’t just discovered in the last few days.
If you insist on numbers to back up their obviously made-up claims that it’s “routinely abused,” take it up with them, because I really am out of here.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Go read the Wikipedia entry on it.
Mnemosyne
@Mandalay:
Well, you could have tried the Wikipedia entry, which includes cases like the woman who was arrested for walking on a bike path using Schedule 7 as the excuse. But I guess that’s not quite as egregious as detaining someone suspected of carrying stolen top-secret documents — after all, how were the police supposed to know she wasn’t planning to carry out a terrorist attack on that bike path?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mnemosyne: Mandalay doesn’t want anecdotal evidence. He wants stats.
@Mandalay: Just off-hand, are you an engineer? Or similar profession?
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I did, and they don’t provide recent data for Schedule 7. But there are these numbers:
Now undoubtedly there are egregious individual instances, such as Miranda. And there are other concerns, such as alleged racial profiling. And as I posted earlier this week, there are some ugly provisions in that law. All bad.
But pointing out that there are egregious cases, and that the law needs fixing, is quite distinct from the the claim that there is a wholesale abuse of the law on a daily basis. I just don’t see it in the numbers, and if you don’t look at the numbers I don’t see how you can make the claim.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Software developer. Does that confirm your suspicions?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: At this point then, I will just say that I think that you have gone a bit down a rabbit hole either in defense of a bad law or in pursuit of a semantic victory.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Yep.
ETA: I have always hated having a mix of engineers and non-engineers on a jury. It makes things so much more complicated. Most people respond to a story that comports with the evidence. So one tells that story. The engineers get sucked into details which are always messy.
LAC
@Mandalay: it does mine. China is winning…
BrianM
@Mandalay:
As was quoted from Wikipedia: “Between 2000 and 2009, police used powers under the Act to stop 62,584 people at railway stations.[50]”
Unless they were stopped on a few Very Special Days, I think that covers the “pretty much every day” part. Perhaps Britain has tens of thousands of not-ordinary people who happened to be the ones stopped, but I rather think the “ordinary people” part is also covered.
The very comment you’re objecting to had the information you claim you want.
Onemorelurker
@Mandlay
You really are an insufferable arsehole who argues in bad faith. This link might enlighten you to schedule 7.
http://schedule7stories.com/
Onemorelurker
Yeah, David fucking Miranda is so much more special than the 70000 people stopped under this law.
http://schedule7stories.com/stopped-at-the-airport/