Glenn Greenwald’s Partner Detained By British Security; Was Transporting Top Secret Documents

greenwald_mirandaEarly Sunday morning, Glenn Greenwald learned that his Brazilian partner, David Miranda, was detained and interrogated for nine hours by security officials at London’s Heathrow airport. The officials also seized Miranda’s electronic devices: his phone, laptop and so forth. At first glance, if he was indeed held because of his association with Greenwald, this was a horribly tone-deaf and heavy-handed move by British officials, especially knowing that Miranda was apparently detained under the U.K.’s Terrorism Act of 2000, Schedule 7.

My initial reaction was the same as many: Why did the British government target Greenwald’s spouse? He might’ve been profiled, I thought, or he might’ve been flagged as Greenwald’s spouse. If the latter was the case, it didn’t look good. Over the years, I’ve taken a pretty harsh stance against media characters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who loop “noncombatants” — ordinary citizens and children — into their screeds. While not precisely the same, Miranda’s detention smacked of a similar kind of bullying against a man who didn’t deserve it, and so it stunk.

When I read The Guardian‘s article about the incident, however, more questions popped up — as with much of The Guardian‘s reporting on this topic, the publication’s tendency for coy, smoke-and-mirrors reporting invariably raises more questions than it answers. The article was credited to “Guardian staff,” for one, there weren’t any quotes from Miranda himself and the only source for the article appeared to be Greenwald, who, from my experience covering this story, tends to be incendiary and misleading.

The wailing and garment rending was underway — the predictable group freakout we’re forced to endure every time a new article is published. Greenwald himself wrote that the U.K. authorities were actually worse than the Mafia because the Mafia doesn’t target family members. (Clearly, Greenwald knows less about the Mafia than he does about political realities or history.)

It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by.

But then, as the day wore on, more details came to light indicating that Miranda wasn’t detained simply because of a “despotic” worse-than-the-Mafia attack on an innocent spouse.

Start the clock on the 24 Hour Rule*.

Right off the bat, The Guardian reported that Miranda was on his way back to Rio de Janeiro after having spent a week in Berlin, Germany. While in Berlin, he “visited” Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker whom Edward Snowden first contacted. Poitras was not only the camera operator for the infamous Hong Kong interview with Snowden, but Greenwald once referred to Poitras as the “Keyser Soze” of the entire operation. Keyser Soze was the Kevin Spacey character in The Usual Suspects — a quiet, unassuming figure who turned out to be the nefarious mastermind behind everything. Greenwald clarified that Miranda didn’t simply visit Poitras, as The Guardian wrote, he “stayed with” Poitras — “Keyser Soze” — for the entire week.

As the hours rolled by, Charlie Savage, reporting for The New York Times, began to reveal more details about the trip — details which The Guardian mysteriously didn’t include in either of its articles.

These details don’t entirely excuse U.K. officials from holding Miranda for the full, legal-limit of nine hours, but they certainly dispel the notion that Miranda was an innocent, unaffiliated spouse on vacation, harassed by the U.K. goon squad simply because Greenwald is his partner.

First, we learned from The New York Times that The Guardian financed Miranda’s trip to Germany and back. This means Miranda was conducting some sort of official business for the publication. Around the same time, Amnesty International referred to Miranda as “a Guardian newspaper employee.” Combined with the Laura Poitras detail, it’s obvious that Miranda was commissioned to do some serious leg-work on the Snowden/NSA reporting, the extent of which was unknown at the time.

And then, late in the evening east coast time, The New York Times revealed the purpose of Miranda’s trip to Berlin:

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

So Miranda, Greenwald’s spouse, served as a paid courier to transfer stolen, top secret national security documents from Greenwald to Poitras, and from Poitras back to Greenwald.

That’s a huge piece of the puzzle, not to mention a total debunking of any hysterical assertion that Miranda was being harassed and intimidated just because he’s Greenwald’s spouse. He was, in fact, detained because he was transporting stolen national secrets.

Several questions now:

1) Why didn’t they just use secure FTP to transfer the documents? It’s not 1972. There are faster, easier ways to share information.

2) On Friday, Wikileaks posted 400GB of encrypted “insurance” files on Twitter and Facebook. “Insurance” files, in this case, are top secret leaked documents that will ostensibly be dumped into public view if something should happen to any of the main players — presumably Assange, Greenwald, Snowden, etc. Were these documents also the documents Poitras gave to Miranda to bring to Greenwald, or vice versa?

3) Why didn’t The Guardian include anything in its initial post about the purpose and parameters of Miranda’s trip? (After Savage reported that Miranda’s trip was paid for by The Guardian, the original story was later updated to include this detail.)

Regardless, the way this story was reported only served to perpetuate the trend of journalistic smoke-and-mirrors employed by The Guardian and others — the vagueness and disingenuousness that feeds the roiling incredulity about all of this.

Additionally, the optics of the whole thing are unfortunate. By detaining Miranda to the very limit of the law, the U.K. only dumped a tanker truck of fuel onto the massive bonfire of outrage — it exacerbated the increasingly irrational freakout among civil libertarian activists and Greenwald acolytes. The use of the Terrorism Act won’t help either. Among other things, it serves to augment the hyper-paranoid conspiracy theory that the government might assassinate Greenwald or Snowden or both. Miranda was treated like a terrorist; the government kills terrorists with drones; ergo, well, you know. Thanks, U.K.

That said, Miranda was transporting volumes of stolen classified documents between two prime movers associated with one of the biggest stories of the Summer — a story that’s embarrassed both the United States and the United Kingdom. He was being paid to do it. Anyone who expected a smooth journey through an international airport without any security issues was lying to themselves.

I’m sure more details will come to light in the coming days. They always do. Stand by…

Adding… By way of a flashback, Greenwald has said publicly that he’s tried to turn over his Snowden documents to Miranda. This can’t be discounted as part of the story:

“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.”

UPDATE: Miranda was quoted in The Guardian, describing his detention:

“It is clear why those took me. It’s because I’m Glenn’s partner. Because I went to Berlin. Because Laura lives there. So they think I have a big connection,” he said. “But I don’t have a role. I don’t look at documents. I don’t even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.”

Laura didn’t coincidentally live Berlin, Miranda went to Berlin specifically to meet with her. And of course he has “a role” — his trip was financed because of his role transporting the documents, regardless of whether he was aware of the content.

*The 24 Hour Rule: 1) A wild claim is made via a news article, most often The Guardian, about the U.S. government or related entities. 2) The article sparks wild fits of outrage. 3) Then, within 24 hours, a mitigating detail is added, undermining or totally debunking one or more of the central claims contained with the article. Related quote: “A lie can travel half-way around the world before the truth gets its pants on.”

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

President Obama held his last press conference of the year today, and you'd never know he just got t[Read more...]
This Healthy Dog Will Die If a Dead Woman Gets Her Last Wish
MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

The Huffington Post tried to "redefine beauty" at least a half-dozen times in 2014, but the effort i[Read more...]
North Korea Officially Named in Sony Hack as Hackers Gloat Over Victory (Updated)
Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

USA Today, and now Fox News, are trying to make the case that President Obama pulled a switcheroo, c[Read more...]
  • chilisize

    Just checking, has anyone here *even attempted* to cite anything Miranda was doing or saying that could reasonably cause one to suspect he was involved in “terrorism”?

    I sure know that Mr Cesca has not.

  • Synthmatrix

    Now Miranda has hired a lawyer to sue the UK because he was traumatised. I was detained for 9 hours at Heathrow, insulted, threatened, etc., for coming to the UK for a job interview. I reserve the right to complain about it but I have no grounds to sue. At least I was unaware I had broken a law. Miranda has no such excuse.

  • naugiedoggie

    Let’s review. In the entire 1500-word document, I found one sentence criticizing the British gov’t for arresting — er, sorry, detaining — David Miranda. And that was for “bad optics,” not a criticism of the actual arrest.

    So, what are the facts about the article? That it is a full-blown — one could say, windy — derogation of the characters of Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda. That the article has two aims: (1) by presenting the two main protagonists in a derogatory manner, to forestall questions about the legitimacy of the actions of the British gov’t and convince readers that the two men deserved to be harassed and detained by the gov’t; (2) by proxy, defend the right of gov’ts to operate in secret, as they see fit, without accountability to the governed.

    Big C. asserts:

    He was, in fact, detained because he was transporting stolen national secrets.

    Miranda was transporting volumes of stolen classified documents between two prime movers associated with one of the biggest stories of the Summer — a story that’s embarrassed both the United States and the United Kingdom.

    Uh, and just how did either the UK gov’t or Big C know this to be the case, prior to Miranda’s arrest and interrogation?

    Under the terms of the Terrorist Act used to detain Miranda, he had no right to counsel, and refusing to answer questions is a criminal offense. (Perhaps, this was the intention of the arrest, to get him to blunder into a criminal offense by refusing to answer questions.) In spite of Big C’s bluster, the plain fact is that Miranda was not breaking any UK laws when he was arrested.

    Ad nauseam, Big C and his Cesca/Obama Axis cohort have defended the right of the UK gov’t and the US gov’t to operate in secret; to spy on both their own citizens and those of other countries; to “detain” any persons, for any reason, as they wish. They’ve asserted that, in the United States, Constitutional protections of liberty (e.g., 4th amendment) must give way to the pressing need to feel safe, and the only way they feel safe is if they know the black Marias are operating.

    The UK doesn’t have a written Constitution and its anti-terrorism laws are much tougher than those of the US. No thanks to the Cesca/Obama Axis, but it’s still more difficult for the FBI to grab someone off the sidewalk, willy-nilly, than it is in the UK. I am certain that Big C and his cohort are fervently wishing that the FBI could operate in the more heavy-handed mode of MI5.

    But, we’re not there yet. Greenwald and Miranda might be first-class a-holes. Snowden might be a narcissistic freak. That doesn’t matter. What matters is what the US gov’t is doing behind closed doors, with the rubberstamp, know-nothing approval of the Axis. Because of the actions of Snowden, Greenwald, and others, we now know something of what those secret activities are. And, that’s all that matters. Gov’t agents and agencies should know we are watching them, even if that “we” doesn’t include Big C and his Axis of Love.

    In the run-out from Snowden’s apostasy, services that provide encrypted email in the US saw a spike in business. Shortly afterward, two of these companies closed down their email services because they were under pressure from the US gov’t to give them access to their clients’ data. Tip o’ the tam to the Cesca/Obama Axis. I mean, hey — if you’re not doing anything wrong, why would you object to letting the gov’t have complete access to everything?

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      “Naugiedoggie” wrote something long that included the word “derogation.” Thanks for your thoughts… “naugiedoggie.”

      >>The UK doesn’t have a written Constitution and its anti-terrorism laws are much tougher than those of the US. No thanks to the Cesca/Obama Axis

      Funniest thing I’ve read in a while.

      • naugiedoggie

        Dang, Big C, you skeered me for a minute, I thought I might have blundered a vocabulary word. Had to rush to my OED and check — whew. No problems in the vocab department, thankfully.

        I like to use my “thinking cap” mouseketeers avatar and my naugiedoggie pseudonym (the Naugatuck High School mascot is the greyhound). I learn something about people who find those items useful objects of ridicule.

  • swift_4

    Bob, you are a horrible person. In your zeal to battle Glenn Greewald, you have wrecked my life. I was halfway through “The Usual Suspects”, and decided to take a break to read your blog. Thanks for ruining the ending. I’m off to watch Citizen Kane, The Crying Game, and The Sixth Sense now.

  • Pelle Svanslös

    I heard from a very reliable source that Miranda was actually only detained for 8hr59min30sec under the Terrorism Act, NOT the full 9 hours as the Guardian has reported.
    Why is the Guardian lying to us!
    What really happened during that 30 seconds and why is the Guardian hiding it?

    Never fear, True Believers! Bob Cesca will prattle on about that 30second discrepancy to distract from issues!

  • DaeguDave

    You know for absolute certainty that the documents stolen by the UK security were “top secret,” right? You have access to those documents. You’ve seen them, and can state without fail that they are top secret documents.

    • PostSurgeOperative

      Greenwald himself made the assertion that Miranda’s trip was for the purpose of exchanging documents with Poitras, and that on his return trip through Heathrow, Miranda was in possession of encrypted files provided by Snowden.

      ARE YOU CALLING GLENN GREENWALD A LIAR?

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Greenwald said they were Snowden documents.

  • Schneibster

    All the British have managed to do, actually, is interrupt the data transfer.

  • CygnusX1isaHole

    The Real 24 Hour Rule: 1) The Guardian prints an accurate account backed by documentation made available for all to read. 2) The article informs and activates. 3) Oftentimes more information follows the next day that adds to the understanding of the original article.

    It’s at this point that Democratic party loyal writers desperate to stem the growing tide of justified anger directed at the president illogically claim that the additional details unravel the entire story using rationale more twisted than a pretzel.

    Case in point. The later released detail that Miranda was being compensated to transport information back and forth is irrelevant to the story. He could’ve been visiting Poitras to discuss the weather or bake cookies. He was detained for nine hours under a Terrorism Act. This is an intentional targeted abuse of power since there’s absolutely no belief on anyone’s part that Miranda is involved in terrorism. That’s the point of Greenwald’s article. Claiming that this detail undermines or debunks the story is itself a wild exaggeration if not an outright lie.

    • 624LC .

      Is this the spin like a top portion of the 24 hr greenwald cycle? ” Basically, the Guardian facts are all accurate ( they are not) and any fact that throws a wet blanket on the outrage is irrelevant (it’s not). ”

      Don’t give yourself a hernia…

      • CygnusX1isaHole

        Please explain how Miranda being paid by The Guardian to transport information undermines or debunks the central claim of the story?

        Thanks.

        • 624LC .

          What am I debunking for you, fanboy ? Greenwald’s claims about where his partner was going or the reporting by the New York Times as to Miranda getting travel pay from greenwaldian -I mean -the guardian? You guys are on the buffoon train headed to clueless town. Bye…

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            Your lack of answer reveals that you have no answer.

            Miranda being paid by The Guardian does not in any significant way change the story Greenwald wrote.

            Cesca’s claim that “a mitigating detail is added, undermining or totally debunking one or more of the central claims contained with the article is exposed as without merit (as is his 24 hour rule).

          • Ianb007

            Greenwald stated that the UK govt was targeting Miranda because he was his partner. He even went as far to accuse the UK govt as being worse than the Mafia because they targeted his family member.

            He purposely left out the info that Miranda was actually working for him and transporting the stolen documents from Snowden to him. He only later admits to that fact when NYT article asked him about it. Then the Guardian has to update their article to include this crucial info.

          • 624LC .

            Look below, you perry mason wannabee twat.

    • Schneibster

      “Adds to the story” != debunks the story.

      You’re lying.

      Seriously, why do you bother? Do you think your propaganda techniques will work on a real journalist? Or on people who are interested enough to listen to a real journalist?

  • KoWT

    What a disturbingly rancorous and ignorant forum you have here. A collection of belligerents who have sanctified the status of their leaders’ secrets on say so alone. As though a Brazilian national flying home from London has any responsibility to keep clear of spilled US secrets on data drives? And it’s the job of British security to detain him for the max time allowed under anti-terror rules, and then seize his data drives in the service of increasingly panicked US secret keepers? The only people who have a responsibility to keep US state secrets secret are those who signed an oath to do so. A Brazilian flying from the UK to Brazil certainly doesn’t have an obligation to respect US government secrets.

    • PostSurgeOperative

      Actually, Mr. Snowden revealed British govt secrets as well, so it’s not at all clear that Mr. Miranda’s detention was requested by or in support of the US govt.

      • KoWT

        Plausible deniability is thin gruel. Remember when the Bolivian president’s plane was forced to land and be inspected because the US was concerned that Snowden was aboard? Or do you have that down as strictly Austria’s decision, if only because that’s where the plane was forced to land, and the US had nothing to do with it?

        • Schneibster

          Denial of fact is transparent. Claiming “plausible deniability” in the face of the blatant illegal transfer through British territory of the fruits of a crime is risible.

        • PostSurgeOperative

          Your comment is thin gruel. If you have a valid point, make it. Otherwise, why should I pay any attention to your silly insinuations and ridiculous strawmen?

          • KoWT

            High praise, coming from a guy who was earlier pretending not to understand that newspapers can employ more than just journalists. You’re one of those intellectually dishonest debaters I’ve been reading about, aren’t you?

          • Schneibster

            Who claiming what?

            You’re psychotic. And that’s a delusion. I’m not even calling you a liar any more. You actually believe this shit.

          • KoWT

            See the arrow after your name? That indicates who you’re responding to. See how the post that has you confused and spouting off vile bullshit has “PostSurgeOperative” after the arrow? That would indicate that I wasn’t responding to you. Feel free to read it, but maybe you can lay off of supposing I share your own fragile mental state. “Psychotic” indeed, says the assclown that can’t be challenged to a bit of thought without going fuckwit feral on a dime.

          • Schneibster

            Yep.

            I’m perfectly aware of who I’m replying to, thanks. I meant what I said to be directed at you.

            You’re lying again. Or experiencing another hallucination. I’m tired of trying to figure out which.

          • nathkatun7

            I really admire you because you try hard to explain things to the members of Greenwald cult. Sadly, they are all cultists and the not at interested in truth.

          • Schneibster

            They’re only trying to make money off it. I have respect for people who don’t make stuff up; none for people who lie.

          • PostSurgeOperative

            The term, ‘journalist’ refers to any person involved in the process of producing journalism. That can include research assistants, presenters, camera operators, etc., and does not require any formal education or credentials. A newspaper delivery boy isn’t a ‘journalist’, but it’s not unreasonable, based on the statements made by Greenwald himself, that Mr. Miranda is an assistant deeply involved in telling these stories. Why else would Mr. Miranda’s laptop have Snowden’s encrypted files?

          • KoWT

            You don’t know what his laptop had on it, you’re just hopeful. Even that hope is misplaced as it had zero to do with terrorism for which the airport detention law was written. The way you have this modeled right now, the UK would have acted to put out leaks in defense of old USSR government secrecy laws. The whole world has a responsibility to keep any given governments’ secrets and assist in the staunching of leaks? Is that really where you want to be on this?

          • Schneibster

            We don’t care what his laptop has on it, it appears he’s been “juicing it up” by claiming exercises from network protocol textbooks are “top secret.”

          • PostSurgeOperative

            Apparently, you haven’t been following this story very closely. In June, Glenn Greenwald reported that while he was abroad, his apartment in Rio was burgled after he ftp’d an encrypted file to Miranda. The only item taken in the burglary was Miranda’s laptop.

            FFS, try to keep up!

          • KoWT

            I thought you were on about whatever security grabbed from him at Heathrow today. I need a scorecard to keep up, the drama’s thick.

          • Schneibster

            It’d be easier if you didn’t lie so much.

            Liars figure.

          • 624LC .

            So is your head

          • 624LC .

            I thought he was playing the innocent spouse card. Hit the snooze button and go back to sleep already.

    • Schneibster

      People who deny reality are always amusing. In this case, it’s obvious that the illegal transfer of the fruits of a crime was underway through British territory. It’s also obvious that the Grauniad hid substantial facts in the story deliberately for money. Bob’s 24-hour rule is right again.

      • KoWT

        You have government secrets elevated far beyond what they deserve. You seem to think that every person on the planet has an affirmative duty to protect the sanctity of our governments’ secrets. Are you a US citizen? If you are, and unless you’ve signed an oath promising to keep secrets for the government, you have zero duty to preserve those secrets. None. It’s not your job to cover for government’s failure to keep secrets secret. Thieving that data was illegal, but publishing it for the citizenry to see is not.

        • Schneibster

          I agree- I don’t think the presentation on Xkeyscore was “Top Secret.” I think Snowden altered it.

          The US government may be harassing them to convince people it’s real. You ever think of that?

        • Ianb007

          No the person with the data has no duty to protect the data, however the govt does. That’s why they detained Miranda and that’s why Snowden is a criminal.

    • http://oldhollywood.net/ woody45

      ” The only people who have a responsibility to keep US state secrets secret are those who signed an oath to do so.”

      That would be Snowden who when he took the job at Booz Hamilton signed a piece of paper saying he would not expose classified information.

      • KoWT

        And that’s why Snowden’s gone to ground with an order for his arrest in play. But it doesn’t mean anyone not similarly oathed up has any legal responsibility at all to preserve those secrets.

        • Schneibster

          Of course he has.

          The reason the Russians were so standoffish is they suspect an NSA plot.

          They’re right.

          And you’re proof it’s working.

        • nathkatun7

          Knowingly receiving stolen property is just as much a crime as stealing the property yourself.

  • Richard_thunderbay

    This incident, which was no doubt staged to garner publicity for Greenwald, is ultimate example of the 24 hour rule.

  • Sean

    Greenwald also ends sentences with prepositions. “Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by.” This alone is an outrage.

    • LiberalRail

      That’s a teaching tool, not a grammar rule. If you had made it to high school, somebody would have told you.

  • LiberalRail

    Again, for those of you falling for Bob Cesca’s bogus narrative, it’s not illegal to possess classified information.

    Try to remember that Bob Cesca knows how stupid most of you are. He knows you will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous it is.

    • blackdaug

      Oh no!
      The return of the Head Case Troll!
      Armed only with a toddlers knowledge of law, and everything else…and the conviction that everybody is the hypnotized thrall of the guy with a blog!
      Spouting bullshit and invective in every direction! With a side order of condescending insults…..it attacks a world that exists only in it’s mind!
      Rated E: for Ewww!

  • LiberalRail

    I love how Bob Cesca opens this article by lying profusely about how he first reacted to this story. If you wan to see how he really reacted, just read what he wrote about it.

    • blackdaug

      It’s back!

      • Richard_thunderbay

        Perhaps he can continue to tell us why Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot.

      • chilisize

        Try tough-actin’ Tinactin.

        Or in your case, a solution of kerosene and creosote.

        Not like you’re going to be doing anything creative with your genitalia anyway.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      I never wrote this: “Only goes with the territory of being a rebel, babe.” In fact, I never use the word “babe.” Bye now.

      • Lex

        hes right though you are a rightwing nutjob

        • nathkatun7

          You and the lying LiberalRail need to look in the mirror! Your leaders are the ones who are in love with racist corporatists like Papa Paul and Baby Paul.

          • Lex

            and your in bed with michell bachmann, peter king and dick cheney so your pro nsa side has its kooks ,

        • Schneibster

          Liars suck. Quoting people as saying what they never said is lying.

  • Kennet

    Greenwald is nothing more than a glorified hacktivist at this point; and I use the word hack in its derivative, dull, & uninteresting sense.

  • DHaradaStone

    Here’s the thing. I am as squeamish as the next guy about prosecuting or even harassing journalists, and that includes “couriers” and other staff for news organizations, even when they are publishing purloined classified documents. But if Greenwald and Poitras are in continued contact with Snowden, that raises issues that most of these cases don’t. Snowden is in the hands of the Russians now, and is effectively doing their bidding, wittingly or unwittingly. Putin is nobody’s fool. He also (and quite literally) couldn’t care less about privacy or civil liberties. He has an agenda, and he’s using Snowden to pursue it. He’s also using Greenwald, Poitras, and Wikileaks, whether they realize or admit it, or not.

  • Badgerite

    I’m always struck by a glaring contradiction with respect to the far left. Somehow they cannot line up fast enough to support causes which are essentially anti American and very authoritarian and regressive in nature, run by people who would as soon kill them as look at them. I’d love to see Greenwald attempt to interview someone from Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Because their political and social philosophy would dictate that both he and his partner should be killed immediately, no questions asked. No drones required.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      I was locked out of Information Clearinghouse many years ago for politely stating that there was enough evil in the day to focus on, that demonizing the U.S., it’s history, and almost everyone in it (the “sheeple”) was just the other side of the coin of American Exceptionalism. Our nation is not a pure and unmitigated evil reification of itself at its worst. Even as empires go we aren’t the worst of the bunch. We can address the ills of our society without vilifying it.

      How dare I?!

    • Lex

      “the far left” and “anti American”, why dont you throw out the phrase war on Christmas out there as well while your parroiting bill oreilley talking points

    • nathkatun7

      Well said! In my book, they all endangering the safety and security of the United States. I suppose Greenwald, now that he lives in Brazil, could care less about the U.S.

  • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

    If this stuff was happening under George Bush you people would be up in arms. Disgusting that you are now the biggest cheerleaders of repression.

    • PinkamenaPanic

      Said it before, I’ll say it again: Yep, you’re definitely a troll. No person arguing honestly would try that bald-faced lie.

      • Lex

        what bold face lie? that obama is just as rightwing as bush? that is the truth.

        • PinkamenaPanic

          Read Badgerite’s comment.

        • 624LC .

          Still wagging your gerkin at us?

        • Schneibster

          Libertardian “they’re all the same” propaganda spotted.

          • Lex

            well according to you guys and the neoconsertive bob cesca i am a “far left” luntatic , by the way do you even know what real far left is? Third world maoists,revleft.com, maoist rebel on youtube and such. before

          • nathkatun7

            Actually, you are simply an ignorant lunatic that nobody should take seriously.

        • nathkatun7

          If PRESIDENT Obama “is just as rightwing as bush,” then how come all the right wingers, including the ones that you leaders admire so much, like Papa Paul and Baby Paul, are all vehemently opposed to him? It’s hyperbolic statements, like calling PRESIDENT Obama ” a very rightwing democrat,” as Ish did, that clearly exposes your utter stupidity.

      • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

        Huh? First, I have never exchanged comments with you before in my life. Second, the excuses and rationalizations around here are so thick you can cut them with a knife. Open your eyes. Just because Snowden has personally questionable politics and a (very rightwing) democrat is in the white house, all of a sudden people like you are eager to hand your jailers the keys. Sad. Tragic.

    • Badgerite

      This stuff WAS happening under George Bush. Except that under George Bush there was, indeed, surveillance of American communications without any warrant or oversight of a court, at all. It was conducted under what John Yoo believed to be powers inherent in the presidency relating to national defense. It was only in 2008, October to be exact, that the FISA Amendments Act was passed that made the intent of Congress that ALL foreign surveillance was covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act clear. Senator Barack Obama voted for it. It was signed into law by George bush in November of 2008. Since then such surveillance that touched on communications of American citizens here at home had to be under the oversight and warrant requirements imposed by the ‘rubber stamp’ (according to Greenwald and Snowden) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In 2009, the Obama administration ordered a review of the NSA programs to monitor compliance with the intent of the FAA. (Also one of the documents leaked by Snowden) . Changes were instituted to help weed out any errors or abuses.

      George Bush didn’t bother with any of that. He just considered it within his powers as president or at least that is the way John Yoo and David Addington advised him.

      • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

        In other words, now you love big brother.

        • Schneibster

          In other words, now you love hyperbole to lynch the black President.

          • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

            LOL. Embarrasing.

          • That River Gal

            Yes, you are.

          • nathkatun7

            Ish, you are the embarrassing one!

          • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

            Sorry, I didn’t realize I had dropped in on a kindergarten class.

          • nathkatun7

            Yep, you are still behaving as if you are still in a kindergarten!

          • Lex

            why are you brining up race?

          • nathkatun7

            Because it’s patently clear that’s part of the reason you supposed progressives disrespect this President so much.

          • Lex

            what the hell are you talking about

          • Lex

            and when did i bring up race its you that does that, my criticism of Obama has nothing to do with race and i would despise him no matter race he was

          • Lady Willpower

            Because brining makes the turkey SO much juicier.
            Duh.

        • i_a_c

          Uh-huh, preferring the system of oversight to the “we do what we want because war” rationale amounts to loving Big Brother.

          • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

            “oversight” yeah you keep on believing.

        • nathkatun7

          You are a total idiot! May be you should go back to school and learn how to read and think. Nothing that Badgerite wrote suggested in any way that he/she loves “big brother.”

          • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

            “oversight” LOL. Go look up the phrase “touching faith.”

    • Hal Swann

      It did happen, only then it was one branch of government ignoring the other two. They corrected it in 2007 and again in 2011. Did I love the changes, no, but it’s legally done now vs then. Maybe you need to relook at something here, because you seem to pretend nothing changed and it did.

      • Badgerite

        2008. I believe.

    • 624LC .

      Spare us the lecture. Had you idiots been on your game and voted, that moron Bush wouldn’t have gotten a second term much less a first term. Go back to playing with your Ralph Nader Barbie dolls already

      • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

        Lolwut? I voted for Obama in 2008. A vote I definitely regret, considering how far far right his presidency has taken American liberals. You’re embarassing.

        • Schneibster

          So, firebagger. Voted for Ro-money in 2012.

          Good to know.

          • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

            LOL. Sad that all you people can do is think of voting for one creep or another. It’s like an addiction. And no, I’m not a libertarian either. Fuck voting, it doesn’t change anything. Here’s the thing, government spying is bad. It doesn’t change whether it’s being done by a Republican or Democrat. Enjoy your police state. You asked for it.

          • Schneibster

            You said it. I just pointed it out.

            Firebagger.

          • nathkatun7

            Why not to move to a country where people never vote? You talk of “police state” but you come to this blog to unleash your venom against the President knowing that nothing would happen to your ass. I wish you would go join Snowden in Russia and see how free you would be to spread lies about Putin.

          • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

            Seriously, you could be quoting Joe McCarthy saying “Go back to Russia.” What is wrong with you?

          • Kitty Smith

            And you forever prove yourself useless.

    • nathkatun7

      Exactly what “stuff” are “happening under President Obama that is so repressive? Please tell me exactly how you are personally being repressed under President Obama. How many of your Greenwald cult members have been jailed or imprisoned a result of President Obama’s repression?

      • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

        You mean people being detained at airports, and Latin American presidents having their planes diverted isn’t enough for you? How about the smashing of the Occupy encampments? How about the multiple framings of people for fake terrorism plots. How about grand jury resisters imprisoned for months. How about Guantanamo?

        Oh hey, at least it’s not Auschwitz! Nice work!

  • Lex

    like cenk ugyour said about bob cesca “here isn’t anything Obama does that [Bob] wouldn’t jump to the immediate, enormous and 110% defense of.” and that is 100% true. Obama could abolish the 13th amendment and Bob Cesca would defend it

    • i_a_c

      This article has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. Curious that people see “Obama” wherever they go even if his name is nowhere to be found.

      • Lex

        This is about the nsa and Bob Cesca grudge against greenwald for exposing the governmental abuse of the constitution and his grudge is because hes a partisan hack and a establishment democrat , that is a person who defends the goverment just because his party is in power, bob cesca is basilica like sean hannity for the gop

        • PinkamenaPanic

          “Parisian”? Well, now I’m convinced you’re either a script or just a troll. Nobody could be this dumb without having to put effort into it.

          • Lex

            i had to disable my spellchecker because it was “auto fixing” typos

    • PinkamenaPanic

      Your hatred of That Negro In The Rich White Man’s House is blinding you. US =/= UK.

      Racist Greenrube scum.

      • Lex

        you were the one that brought race up i did not, it does not matter if obama was white bob cesca would defend him just as much because hes a partisan hack, as long as its democrat everything they do is okay. this has jackshit to do with race

        • PinkamenaPanic

          You’re not even trying anymore. You’re a troll, and a bad one at that.

          • Lex

            far from a troll just angry that “liberals” are in full force defending obama for doing the same shit bush did but were outraged when bush was doing it.

          • PinkamenaPanic

            Yep, you’re definitely a troll. No person arguing honestly would try that bald-faced lie.

          • Badgerite

            Again, not the ‘same shit’. The NSA under Bush operated wholly outside the oversight of the FISA Court. Same stuff going on — no warrants required, of any kind. That changed in 2008 because of real ‘revelations’ made by actual whistle blowers. Since 2008, the NSA operations have required the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This was not the case under Bush. Under Bush, Bush WAS the oversight. Can you see a difference, or am I wasting my breath as usual.

          • PostSurgeOperative

            Defending Obama? This story is about the British govt detaining a Brazilian citizen. This story has fuck-all to do with Pres. Obama.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            And it is so telling that Lex felt he had to drag Obama into it.

          • Schneibster

            Obama isn’t in charge of British Passport Control or British Customs.

            Anyone who thinks he is is a nutjob.

          • Lex

            never sad he was

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Obama runs UK airport security? I don’t support that.

      • Lex

        ehh? no but with the tories in power in uk which are the british equlant of the gop its no wonder they are working so close with usa even outdoing tony blair who brownnosed bush at every turn

        • Schneibster

          It’s a coalition government.

          You’re lying again.

          • nathkatun7

            You are giving him too much credit! Lying requires some forethought. I think Lex is simply ignorant. All he knows is how to parrot whatever he hears Cenk and Glenny say.

    • Badgerite

      That is just stupid.

    • nathkatun7

      Said like a typical right wing nut, just like your hero Cenk Uygur was before he pretended to be a born again progressive in order to make money once the Bush regime became unpopular. You are like Rush Limbaugh. You hate PRESIDENT Obama so much that there is nothing he does or has done that you consider positive. Poor you! Unlike Cenk and Glenny who are out to make money, you are just a true believer cultist follower who regurgitates everything they say without critically examining them.

      • Lex

        oh there are some good things he has done, obamacare and gay marriage are milestones that he did that were great, but his policy with war on drugs, the nsa and such are awful and are just as bad as bush polices were on this issue. i dont even care that much about greenwald but the nsa story is a major issue and anybody who denies that is a idiot or a neocon

        • Kerry Reid

          You mean like how he signed the Fair Sentencing Act and how his DOJ came out against mandatory minimums? Yeah — just like Bush.

          • Lex

            he has not abolished the mandatory minimums and keeps pouring money into the war on drugs travesty

          • Kerry Reid

            He can’t “abolish” laws set by Congress, which is where the mandatory minimums in drug sentencing came from. (Anti-Drug Act of 1986.) Someone who is so worried about executive overreach and abuse of power ought to know that. What CAN happen – and what Holder just called for — is for federal prosecutors to ignore the minimums for nonviolent drug offenses.

  • Runt

    I have to marvel at the curious mix of innocence and cynicism (one might even say paranoia) which people like Greenwald manage to contain in their minds at all times. On the one hand, he is convinced that the US and UK governments are vile authoritarian monsters whose ethics are inferior to the mafia’s, but on the other hand, he is shocked–shocked!–when these same governments play hardball and decide to push him and his helpers around a bit. What did he expect? Based on his own statements about them, he should be prepared to be carted off to an undisclosed location at any moment, and so should anyone else who is working with him. Isn’t that what he constantly claims happens to all American whistleblowers?

    That’s not to defend the heavy-handed action of the Brits, who at the very least seem to have abused their anti-terror law. But it does make me wonder about GG’s ability to form a reasonable and coherent image of the world.

  • CL Nicholson

    If you’re partner/spouse is carrying illegal shit you, that makes him involved and culpable. Doesn’t Glenn Greenwald realize how many women of color are serving hefty jail time because their boyfriends were smuggling dope in their purses or cars? How did this guy get a law degree?!

  • PostSurgeOperative

    “This is obviously a serious, radical escalation of what they are doing. He is my partner. He is not even a journalist.” — Glenn Greenwald, as quoted by Charlie Savage of the NYT

    If Mr. Miranda isn’t a journalist, then what is The Guardian paying him for?

    • stacib23

      They are paying Greenwald, and he isn’t a journalist either.

      • PostSurgeOperative

        Greenwald is a journalist by trade.

        • Schneibster

          I think staci meant honest journalist.

          After all, this is an article about… journalism

          by… a journalist. I hope I don’t need to add the qualifier in Bob’s case.

          :D

          • chilisize

            “I hope I don’t need to add the qualifier in Bob’s case.”

            Let me do it then: “A somewhat less-than honest journalist who has floated the unsubstantiated claim that Miranda was carrying “top secret national security documents.”

            You’re fucking so welcome.

          • Schneibster

            Not according to the Grauniad.

            Maybe if you’d read the article.

          • chilisize

            How about just posting chapter and verse of the Guardian, The NYT, or anyone who’s not Bob Cesca, making a *substantiated* and *specific* assertion that Miranda was carrying “stolen top-secret national security documents.”

            If, as you claim, this is all over place, you should have no problem at all pasting up the big quotes.

          • Schneibster

            Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr.
            Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras,
            Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different
            documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored
            on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr.
            Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials
            provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

            New York Times.

            Why are they encrypted?

            Duh.

            Now stop lying.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          he’s a hack with an agenda…..not a journalist.

  • Robin Fariel

    Maybe Greenwald and Poitras WANTED Miranda to be arrested and held for a longer period of time. It would have helped them garner even more outrage and headlines… and money.

  • Wary

    As always thanks Bob for getting down to the nitty gritty called the truth! I can always count on you and your quality staff!

  • differentdrummer

    If he were detained on suspicion of possession of stolen goods or conspiracy to commit espionage, this would be…well, not a non-story, but shame instead of outrage for GG and the Guardian.

  • js hooper

    Miranda was treated like a terrorist…

    Well maybe if he wasn’t acting like one he wouldn’t get treated like one. Seriously WTF is this shit. The Guardian, Greenwald and their associates are acting like fuckin Al-Qaeda with couriers, handlers, mules etc

    What really pisses me off is that Greenwald & the Guardian knew damn well what Miranda was sent over there for…and what he was transporting….So when he got caught they decided to get out in front of the story and play the sympathetic victim card and SCREAM at the top of their lungs about the evil Govt.

    The Guardian is now a rogue criminal political organization and can no long be considered a News source.

    • chilisize

      “What really pisses me off is that Greenwald & the Guardian knew damn well what Miranda was sent over there for…and what he was transporting….”

      The funny thing to me is that *you have no idea* what Miranda was or was not “transporting.”

      But let Mr Cesca help you pretend.

      • js hooper

        Are you trying to deny that Miranda was used as a courier by Greenwald and Poitras?

        WTF….Greenwald has already ADMITTED this.

        Must suck for you guys in the Greenwald camp.Your boy is a coward who got caught using his boyfriend as a mule to spread illegally obtained info.If Greenwald had any courage he would have kept his Brazilian boyfriend out of his affairs. He’s lucky he didn’t get his ass arrested.

        • chilisize

          “Are you trying to deny that Miranda was used as a courier by Greenwald and Poitras?”

          You’re using tendentious language there to make it appear that rather than operating as a capable, consenting agent, Miranda was “being used.”

          Pretty juvenile of you.

          Again, to the point: You *don’t* know what he was transporting for anyone, if indeed he even *was* transporting anything for anyone.

          • Badgerite

            The British government would have no authority, I don’t think, to keep his laptop, were his travel innocent.
            One more time. Let’s see if you can add.
            Rio to Berlin to Rio — to meet with ‘Keyser Soze’ — paid for the by the Guardian ( newspaper that broke and continues to publish stolen documents from Snowden ) — laptop confiscated and not given back === Innocent sight seeing trip. Is that correct?

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            Laura Poitras has been repeatedly detained at the airport (as countless others have been for purely political reasons) and has had her electronics seized and copied.

            U.S. filmmaker repeatedly detained at border
            April, 2012:

            One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.

            http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/

          • Badgerite

            That would be the Laura Poitras that is the ‘Keyse Soze’ of the Guardian Snowden story. And they seized her electronics. Go figure. When you are aiding, what is a fugitive from American law, that is not purely politics. Expressing an opinion on a blog is purely politics or free speech. The publishing of classified government documents is not purely political.

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            The article I linked to detailing Poitras being detained at the border was PRIOR to the Snowden story.

            At the time (2010-11) she was making a documentary film on Yemen. She had previously made a film on Iraq that according to The New York Times “exposed the emotional toll of occupation on Iraqis and American soldiers alike.”

            Is making a film on Yemen or Iraq a crime (or cause for suspicion) according to the Democratic party today?

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            …When you are aiding, what is a fugitive from American law, that is not purely politics.

            ———–

            Poitras is a journalist protected by the 1st amendment.

            Only an extremist authoritarian totalitarian unAmerican radical would equate a journalist exercising her 1st amendment freedom of the press rights as a crime.

            It’s clear that the Democratic party today is infested with Dick Cheney Democrats.

          • Badgerite

            She was going through an international border crossing, not publishing an article. If they want to put a prior restraint on an article she is going to publish, I will support her. Crossing a border with whatever on her computer, not so much. I don’t see how that imperils her First Amendment rights.

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            I mistakenly posted my reply above.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, making a film on Yemen might be seen as suspicious. Especially if some of the people you had dealings with there were somehow involved with Al Qaeda. Iranian Intelligence has been trying to develop a presence in Latin America.

          • CygnusX1isaHole

            “…I don’t see how that imperils her First Amendment rights.”

            ———-

            You don’t see how being stopped, detained, questioned and intimidated by security every time Poitras comes back from another country imperils her journalism and thus her First Amendment rights?

            Greenwald reported on Poitras being detained yet again in early 2012:

            Each time this has happened in the past, Poitras has taken notes during the entire process: in order to chronicle what is being done to her, document the journalistic privileges she asserts and her express lack of consent, obtain the names of the agents involved, and just generally to cling to some level of agency.

            This time, however, she was told by multiple CBP agents that she was prohibited from taking notes on the ground that her pen could be used as a weapon. After she advised them that she was a journalist and that her lawyer had advised her to keep notes of her interrogations, one of them, CBP agent Wassum, threatened to handcuff her if she did not immediately stop taking notes. A CBP Deputy Chief (Lopez) also told her she was barred from taking notes, and then accused her of “refusing to cooperate with an investigation” if she continued to refuse to answer their questions (he later clarified that there was no “investigation” per se, but only a “questioning”). Requests for comment from the CBP were not returned as of the time of publication.

            Just consider the cumulative effect of this six years of harrassment and invasion. Poitras told me that it is “very traumatizing to come home to your own country and have to go through this every time,”and described the detentions, interrogations and threats as “infuriating,” “horrible” and “intimidating.” She told me that she now “hates to travel” and avoids international travel unless it is absolutely necessary for her work.

            http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/

          • chilisize

            Here is what is correct: *You don’t know* what kind of or even if any data was seized.

          • Ianb007

            Are you even reading the NY times article or even the updated Guardian article? You keep trying to debunk stuff that Greenwald has already admitted to. This is beyond bizarre.

          • chilisize

            Why not just quote these alleged “admissions” then?

          • Ianb007

            Because other people including the author have linked and quoted the info and you have been consistently ignoring it. Why waist my time if you are not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge what is now confirmed admission by Greenwald?

          • chilisize

            Bullshit. They have “linked” to storys that clearly *don’t* say that Miranda was carrying “stolen top secret national security” *anything.*

            “Stolen top secret national security documents” is speculation made by Bob Cesca.

          • Ianb007

            You’re intellectually dishonest. The Snoden documents are classified documents that even Snowden admits he took. You don’t even have the integrity to write linked without quotation marks…lol. Like there is some other term to use when posting links to a story. Just quit now.

          • Lazarus Durden

            Wait are you seriously calling us fanboys when you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify anything Greenwald does? Project much?

          • chilisize

            Please quote these alleged justifications back to me. They must be quite numerous, so it shouldn’t be too much for you.

        • blackdaug

          Apparently, the ability to click on links and read the Times article that his post quoted directly from, requires some sort of herculean effort for these guys. The internet equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going: Nah! Nah! Nah!
          Greenwald himself admits hubby was being used to transport Snowden info to and from Poitras…in the article linked!
          Even he doesn’t deny it, because he thinks it’s all kosher once borders are crossed!

    • CygnusX1isaHole

      Miranda was treated like a terrorist…Well maybe if he wasn’t acting like one he wouldn’t get treated like one

      ——————-

      People who physically transport information are to be interpreted as acting like a terrorist?

      Wow!

      I knew the Obama justice department had labeled Occupy protesters as terrorists and has prosecuted environmentalists as terrorists.

      But now you’re saying that those who physically carry information should also be considered terrorists?

      You Democrats are truly TRULY frightening extremists! You’ve officially out-extremed your Republican twins!

      • js hooper

        Yeah…Miranda was simply transporting “information”

        Fuckin Greenwald himself bragged about possessing stolen info that could cause great damage to the U.S.

        Nobody made him say that. That dumbass just can’t control himself and runs off at the mouth. Then he turns around and uses his loved ones as mules smuggling tech around the world.

        He doesn’t get to do all that and then whine about it when he gets caught.

        • CygnusX1isaHole

          If you’re brave enough to admit that you believe in an authoritarian totalitarian state with the protections in the Bill of Rights to be determined by the President on a case by case basis why can’t you show similar bravery and simply admit to being a Republican?

          It would really make things simpler for everyone involved.

          • js hooper

            “why can’t you show similar bravery and simply admit to being a Republican?”

            You should ask your boy Greenwald the same thing.

    • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ Ish

      you sound like a nazi

      • js hooper

        Thanks…I try

    • chilisize

      “Well maybe if he wasn’t acting like [a terrorist] he wouldn’t get treated like one.”

      Please give some substance here: Specifically, how did Miranda “act like” a “terrorist”?

      “Seriously WTF is this shit.”

      The shit is you making stupid shit up.

  • Xyxox

    Once again, Bob Cesca nails the reality of the Greenwald hype.

  • gn

    By detaining Miranda to the very limit of the law, the U.K. only dumped a tanker truck of fuel onto the massive bonfire of outrage — it exacerbated the increasingly irrational freakout among civil libertarian activists and Greenwald acolytes.

    They live to be outraged. And they have romanticized oppression and so they live to be victims. These people are whining about being detained while carrying STOLEN FUCKING INTEL??? Millions of innocent people have been detained by NYPD alone for the sole reason of being black or brown. This is nothing but the same far right fantatics (and whatever idiotic, hubris-filled liberals are stupid enough to have fallen for this story) scandal-mongering and pushing Rand Paul for 2016.

    • chilisize

      “…STOLEN FUCKING INTEL???”

      You can’t substantiate that, EVEN IN ALL CAPS….

      • gn

        You’re all over this comments section grasping at straws.

        All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

        • chilisize

          I’m “all over this comments section” pointing out that the claim Miranda was carrying “stolen top secret national security documents” is without substance.

          That *should* be enough right there: Some real, tangible evidence beyond something Greenwald allegedly (but didn’t actually) say, or something that Charlie Savage supposedly (but didn’t really) write.

          And y’all got… nothin’…

          Why would a person carrying “stolen top secret national security documents” be sent on his way after some hours of questioning?

          That’s right: *you can’t fucking say.* NOT EVEN IN ALL CAPS.

          • gn

            What are you talking about? They admit that he was carrying files stolen by Snowden. You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you’d like but the story is clear: GG claimed that his husband was being harassed solely for being married to GG. It turns out that his husband was carrying stolen intel and is in the employ of the guardian (clearly an involved actor) which paints quite a different picture. This is nothing but yet another in a very long series of trumped up allegations by Greenwald.

          • chilisize

            “They admit that he was carrying files stolen by Snowden.”

            “They.” Lets see an antecedent for that pronoun. Then how about a quote in which some member of this “they” cops to Miranda transporting “stolen top secret national security documents,” as described by Bob Cesca, his fans, and …. *nobody else.*

          • Badgerite

            The staff of the Guardian printed documents stolen by Snowden, training slides, etc. How come they haven’t arrested them for obviously having in their possession ‘stolen top secret national security documents’? Your argument is lame and ‘proves’ absolutely nothing other than that you would have made a fine juror for the O J Simpson trial.

          • chilisize

            Again: How on earth could anyone believe that the authorities of Great Britain would detain Greenwald’s partner *knowing* he was carrying “stolen top secret national security documents,” and then send him on his merry way after questioning?

            The clear answer is that *there is no evidence he was carrying any “stolen,” “top secret,” “national security” *anything.*

          • Badgerite

            They didn’t let his laptop or other computer drives he was carryng go on their way, did they? There would be a lot of reasons why they would let him go. 1) His trip was paid for by the Guardian, so he would be working under the umbrella of journalism. 2) I believe we went down this road with respect to Rep. Steve King who wanted Greenwald arrested and I believe the consensus was that the authorities could not do that – journalism and all. 3) If they arrested Miranda for being in possession of documents provided to them by Snowden (or more likely, copies of documents), shouldn’t all of the Guardian staff who worked on this story be arrested as well?

          • DaeguDave

            Wrong….he had flash drives taken, and laptops….nothing was stated about what was ON those flash drives. Everyone is assuming that since Miranda was with Poitras, that the flash drives MUSST contain material from Snowden. How do you know that?

          • CL Nicholson

            Sir or ma’am – if Glenn Greenwald convinced his husband to smuggle documents provide to him which were received from a known fugitive and thief such as Edward Snowden – its called “Possession of Stolen Goods” Its just that simple. It would be no different if he were talking around with a stolen IPod as a gift. No need for all caps – just a basic understanding of the law that any 14 year old inner city kid could tell you.

          • Badgerite

            Mr. Snowden is sought by American authorities for what now? Oh yeah. Stealing classified documents from US government. If the documents in his laptop were from Snowden, I doubt they were his shopping list or a list of ‘neat things to do in Berlin’ while meeting with ‘Keyser Soze’. Add to the fact that the documents in his laptop had come originally from Snowden , the fact that the Guardian was paying for his trip and the fact that the laptop and other drives he was carrying were not given back and you get what? INNOCENCE, of course.

      • Badgerite

        I’m guessing that UK intelligence could substantiate that. Otherwise they have no authority to confiscate someone’s laptop at the border. It is still Miranda’s property. If they had no right to seize it, they would need to give it back and let him go. Wouldn’t they. Greenwald is supposed to be a pit bull lawyer after all, isn’t he. Why can’t he get these confiscated laptops back if there is nothing but nice travel pictures on them?

        • http://www.trulynomadlydeeply.com/ Chris Allbritton

          UK border authorities can keep property for up to seven days under the infamous Section 7 of the Terrorism act of 2000.

          Detention of property

          (2)An examining officer may detain the thing—

          * (a)for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences, *

          (b)while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, or

          ©while he believes that it may be needed in connection with a decision by the Secretary of State whether to make a deportation order under the M1Immigration Act 1971.

          link to the relevant section here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

          • Badgerite

            Well. Precisely. At the end of seven days the confiscated material must be shown to be either something the UK government has a right to retain or it must be given back. How terrifying! Police state!

  • http://pragmaticobotsunite.blogspot.com/ Sepia

    So, basically Greenwald used his partner as a political mule.

  • naugiedoggie

    In re: the encrypted thumb drives being transported. (If the gov’t knew that the data was the claimed documents from Snowden, either they decrypted the files directly or Greenwald/Miranda revealed the contents of the files to the interrogators.)

    You can buy a tool on the open market that will decrypt these files. It’s entirely reasonable to expect that gov’t agencies like NSA have the “Premium” versions of tools like this.

    Forensic Tool Cracks BitLocker, PGP, TrueCrypt Containers

  • naugiedoggie

    I knew we could count on you, Bob, to side with your friends in high places. Those far left extremists must be stopped, even if it takes a ride in the black Maria to accomplish that end. It’s not that there was anything actually wrong with the 9-hour “interrogation,” it’s that the optics were bad.

    Man, oh man. Obviously, you’re making a good living out of your “any way the wind blows” political writing. I guess that is what counts, in the end.

    • chilisize

      “..it’s that the optics were bad..”

      Good points and damn that is one annoying phrase. You know you’re in trouble when plain English cannot suffice. Whatever is wrong with “it looks bad”?

      • naugiedoggie

        Orwell’s Politics and the English Language should be required reading for members of the Cesca/Obama Axis. Including, for the Big C himself.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          Oh yeah, we know…..you’re so much smarter than we obots. Better read, too. And undoubtedly, better looking.

          • naugiedoggie

            I’m not a member of the Cesca/Obama Axis. Thus I don’t follow in your path … let’s see, let me extract some quotes of your comments, to illustrate your demonstration of intelligent commentary.

            *fucking moron
            *moron
            *nutcase
            *babbling idiocy
            *simple-minded
            *acolyte-troll

            Yeah, you seem pretty well-read and literate. A legend in your own mind.

            Here’s something for later, when you have retrieved your head from that sunless black hole. Politics and the English Language

          • stacib23

            And minty, fresh breath. LOL

        • 624LC .

          How do you find time to read with your head up greenwald’s buttocks? It’s funny how none of you greenwald groupies have anything to say about the story itself.

          • naugiedoggie

            There’s a lot you don’t know. That’s probably because you have your head up Cesca’s buttocks. It’s possible that some day, you’ll pull out long enough to see two feet in front of you. Anything’s possible, as they say.

            It’s funny how you Cesca groupies never have time to address the real issues, but only criticize and belittle those who do.

          • 624LC .

            Again, funny how you are busy shrieking all over this board and still haven’t addressed the article. And in the battle of who can cram their obsequious head up a person’s head, you win. Facts mean absolutely nothing to you minions, do they?

          • naugiedoggie

            You’re right. Members of the Cesca/Obama Axis have a one-way right to ridicule people who don’t agree with them. I violated the rules of the board by talking back to you the way you talked to me. My bad.

            Let’s see …

            How do you find time to read with your head up greenwald’s buttocks?

            I’ll just ask you to point out the facts in your comment quoted above, and then I’ll address them as best I can. Being, as I now recognize, all inferior to you and all.

          • 624LC .

            Shorter you- ” I have nothing so I will throw back some bullshit at you and pretend that am a wit”.

            We done here, sparky?

          • naugiedoggie

            Okay, I guess that’s your way of saying, your comment was fact-free, and you’re just a put-down artist. Hint: if you want to criticize somebody for not addressing the facts, try addressing the facts yourself.

          • Badgerite

            And what ‘real’ issue is that? That Greenwald’s boyfriend was detained for 9 whole hours while in transit from ‘Keyser Soze’ to Greenwald and on the payrole of the Guardian and had his computer drives, etc taken away by UK authorities? Well, if there is a real issue here, Greenwald is supposed to be pit bull lawyer, so sue them. The whole thing does not amount to anything bordering on human tragedy to justify outrage and if you are experiencing outrage, take it to court. If you can.

          • naugiedoggie

            The “real issue,” that the NSA was secretly spying on American citizens before documentation of that spying was exposed by a far left extremist. About which issue, exactly zero of you Cesca/Obama Axis sock puppets find anything condemnatory to say.

            Why is it that you find Greenwald and Snowden so repulsive, yet not one gripe about the spying? Why is there an interstate highway in Hawaii? Why ask why?

        • That River Gal

          I hope the new commenting system includes a way to check for sock puppets. Exhibits A and B above.

    • gn

      He wasn’t carrying stolen intel? He has an expectation of not being detained or jailed while transporting stolen intel? What universe do you people reside in?

      • 624LC .

        Clearly one filled with entitled twats.

      • chilisize

        Detained, not jailed. Had he been carrying “stolen, top secret national security documents,” he’d be in jail now, no?

      • naugiedoggie

        I don’t reside in your universe of the gov’t can do no wrong and even if it does, I don’t want to know about it.

        I actually didn’t write anything about the contents of his thumb drives, beyond noting that the contents were encrypted. But that’s okay, as a member of the Cesca/Obama Axis, you are allowed to “just make sh*t up” .

        Is it a criminal offense in the UK for a Brazilian national to be in possession of documents stolen from the US gov’t?

        Genius. Do you ever ask questions, or just come here for Bob to assign you your daily talking points?

        • Badgerite

          If the greatest thing I ever had to endure was 9 hours in airport detention facility, once, because I was suspected of carrying or actually carrying stolen government documents, I think I could live with that. It is a good thing he didn’t go to visit Snowden in Russia. He might have run into a lot more severe problems there.

    • PinkamenaPanic

      Notice how our Greenrube “friend” here can’t go one post without playing the old “paid shill/double-secret cahoots” argument. When you can’t use the facts, just poison the well.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        Yeah. In protest groups in the eighties, the ones who created intrigue about the possibility of the feds infiltrating the group were the ones to look out for, they were drama queens, narcissists, and manipulators.

      • naugiedoggie

        Have I seen any reference to the facts about NSA spying? I missed those, alright. All I see is a bucket load of character assassination of Greenwald and his partner. Because when you don’t like the message, you shoot the messenger. That’s why you’re here, isn’t it?

  • first last

    Next the Guardian is going to tells us that the NSA has acquired ALUMINIUM TUBES!!

    I mean, do you know what you can do with ALUMINIUM TUBES?

    • chilisize

      Know who never bought the ALUMINUM TUBES nonsense?

      The “far,” “utopian,” left, that’s who.

      Wanna bet that between Cesca, Willis, and Pazienza, *at least* one of those three swallowed hook, line, and sinker?

      • gn

        Greenwald did. I’m on the left and I know lies and propaganda when I see it, and his reporting is propaganda.

        • chilisize

          So?

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Moron.

          • chilisize

            Clearly you have a hard-on for me. I’ve obviously charmed you witless.

            Imagine how nice it would be if you had anything interesting to say.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            Speaking of witless, thinking a poster called Nicole has got a hard-on?

          • chilisize

            Clearly, yes, for me.

            Here’s a hint: Online you can have (or not have) any name, or as important, any plumbing, you choose.

          • Robert Scalzi

            Shows how little you know chillmelt

      • Xyxox

        Well, Greenwald swallowed it at the time. Go back and look, he supported the Iraq War precisely over the WMD.

        • chilisize

          Yep. He was and is, politically, a libertarian.

          Again, so?

          And again, a friendly bet: Wanna wager that at least one of the three, Cesca, Willis, or Pazienza, bought the aluminum tubes horseshit. Bet one or more bought the “nuclear fuel from Niger” and “mobile chemical labs,” the “vial” of anthrax as well. As a matter of fact, I bet a good number of their fanboys so upset over my posts chugged that crap down like so much creamed corn as well.

          • Eric Cartman

            Libertarian Greenwald working for the Guardian!

          • Badgerite

            No, actually, I did not. Because I listened to Mohammad Barradei of Egypt who had the expertise and was on the UN Commission on such matters. He debunked pretty much all of Colin Powell’s talking points at the UN very quickly. All you had to do was be paying attention. Just about anybody who paid attention knew that the Iraq War was a matter of CHOICE for the US. Which is why I resented the Bush people taking the after invasion planning and nation building part so haphazardly. With no realistic plan. The shock and awe was going to wear off and pretty quickly. Then what?

          • DaeguDave

            Of course they didn’t., that was when the evil George Bush was president. Now, of course, when the white Knight Obama is president, everything he sanctions—that George Bush did—is AOK! Cuz now it’s OUR guy doing it, not the evil Rethuglican!

          • Lazarus Durden

            Prove it. Cite it. Cite something Chez, Oliver, or Bob wrote buying the aluminum tube argument, heck supporting the Iraq War in general. Go for it. I’ll wait.

          • stacib23

            I’ll wait with you.

          • chilisize

            It was pure speculation sport, labeled as much and labeled clearly.

            You and Mr Cesca should give that a try sometime: Had he simply typed “*I bet* Miranda was carrying top-secret national security documents,” then you’d get no complaint from me.

            As it is, we have a bald assertion that Miranda was carrying such docs, and it goes without substantiation.

        • Badgerite

          Oh, SNAP!

      • Badgerite

        Actually, it was the Department of Energy experts, the Egyptian, Mr Barradei, who has expertise in that area, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, brought to you by the CIA. The left just jumped on the bandwagon once it got rolling.

        • chilisize

          The Department of Energy was cited by what Cesca would call “the far left.”

          You think that you have some sort of point that “the far, utopian left,” as Cesca would call it, didn’t independently gather data on the tubes and go on their own fact finding trip to Niger?

          Silly.

      • Lazarus Durden

        Greenwald was in favor of the invasion of Iraq and so was Andrew Sullivan. Try again.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663669914 Sean Richardson

        It seems as if your style of arguing is “I assume this” or “I bet this is true”. Why not just look and see whether Greenwald, Cesca, Willis, and/or Pazienza actually said any of these things?

        I mean, I know the answer — it’s because it’s easier to wait for somebody to else to post something which they claim is based on research and then just repeat it forever.

    • 624LC .

      MARS, bitches! :-)

  • chilisize

    “So Miranda, Greenwald’s spouse, served as a paid courier to transfer stolen, top secret national security documents from Greenwald to Poitras, and from Poitras back to Greenwald.”

    Where did you get the details of the status of these documents, and why aren’t you including anything here more substantial than an assertion? If he was carrying “top secret” documents, would he have been released, would he not have been arrested?

    • blackdaug

      “Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden”

      – The New York Times

      • chilisize

        If Greenwald said it, even if he didn’t exactly say that at all, then it must be true, right?

        Charming.

        • blackdaug

          What in the fuck are you reading?

          Delightful!

          • chilisize

            “What in the fuck are you reading?”

            All kinds of stuff. Here’s a good bit I’d recommend: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

          • blackdaug

            Here, I recommend you read this: Fuck Off.

          • chilisize

            My, but you are a rather incurious little person. Don’t like reading?

            Why am I not surprised/

          • blackdaug

            “Why am I not surprised”

            I’m guessing brain damage?

          • chilisize

            Was it in vitro, or did you fall on your head as a wee little incurious stooge?

          • blackdaug

            I think it was me banging up against your little fetal head. Your mother didnt tell me she was preggers.

          • chilisize

            Have you actually ever been with a woman, whether my mother or some other unfortunate?

            Or is this just some role-playing exercize you regularly engage in?

            Do any of them *know* that any such coupling occurred?

            Cause *that* would be traumatic I’m sure.

          • blackdaug

            Aren’t you just full of personal inquiries?
            Save those for your real dad.
            Sorry again about that dent in your head. That should answer most of those questions.

          • chilisize

            Well, yes, news of my mother does fall under the category of “personal.”

            But wait: Maybe you were just “making” a very tired “joke,” mistaking yourself for some kinda yuckster?

            I guess “coming up with” that *hilarious* material of yours is how you while away your celibate days nights weeks months years, if “coming up with” could work as a euphemism for *remembering what the duller eighth graders used to say to you when you were one of the duller seventh graders.*

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            You are a nutcase. Seriously. Time to go back to your padded cell.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            I concur.

          • first last

            Okay, I read the first part of it but it was kinda not interesting or really all that important a point, so I stopped.

          • chilisize

            Of course. Must be the reason you have nothing of substance to say about it.

            You can go back to being told what to think now.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            How old are you? You sure are a fucking moron.

          • chilisize

            Not sure on my age, but I know how to read, write, swim and ride a bike.

      • ultraviolet_uk

        Isn’t it just typical of a Greenwald disciple that as soon as Greenwald’s own words betray him, we are expected to treat Greenwald as a wholly untrustworthy source.

        • chilisize

          In fact I think Greenwald is kinda his own worst enemy, as Cesca has said (yes, sometimes he has a point), he lets advocacy mar his reporting.

          OTOH, the Cesca/Willis obsession with weak attempts to play gatekeeper, to be the hall monitors over what criticism of the administration is acceptable or not, is equally shoddy, and the assertion that Miranda was busted with “top secret national security documents” is not backed up. Not even a little.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            ;Evidently your reading skills are not up to par, acolyte.

          • chilisize

            Do tell. Don’t hesitate to be really specific.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            “Specific”, like you aren’t, you mean?

            You have yet to refute a single point in Cesca’s piece with any facts. Not one.

            You come on this site babbling idiocy, full of the idea that YOU know more and better than we do.

            You are a simple-minded acolyte-troll, far less intelligent than the usual GG trolls.

            Now, go find your mom and ask her to loosen your knots.

          • chilisize

            I have to prove a negative, that Miranda *wasn’t* detained for carrying “top secret national security documents”?

            Google argumentative fallacies. It is for Mr Cesca (or perhaps you) to substantiate assertions.

            Again: No evidence that Miranda carried any “top secret national security” *anything*.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            “Again: No evidence that Miranda carried any “top secret national security” *anything*.”

            Seriously? Does someone pay you to be this incredibly dense, or were you just born that way?

          • chilisize

            You could just cite the evidence. No, wait. You couldn’t. That’s why you’re being so silly now.

          • stacib23

            Good grief, I am sick of you.

  • ultraviolet_uk

    OK, a few thoughts about this.

    1. The Terrorism Act is our Patriot Act. It enables airport security staff to detain anyone without any need for reasonable suspicion. It is an appalling law.

    2. Like Jean-Charles de Menezes, Miranda could be taken as being of Indian or Pakistani origin. It is entirely plausible that he was initially stopped for the crime of flying while brown. It would be very relevant to know whether officials did or did not know who he was at the point when they detained him.

    3. Either Greenwald thought Miranda would have immunity, in which case he is even more dumb than has so far appeared the case, or he knew something like this was likely to happen and was working on the basis that he could produce another nice dose of outrage porn with it.

    4. There seems to be no excuse for having detained Miranda for the full nine hours. Whatever else has happened here, that looks even to me, a confirmed anti-Greenwaldian, just plain wrong.

    5. But if he did actually have stolen classified documents on him, why was he not arrested? That makes me think he may have had a lot of fake documentation on him, or encrypted nothing, which reinforces the thought that this was a deliberate set-up by Greenwald for the express purpose of writing this story.

    • blackdaug

      It wasn’t a case of him being stopped while being brown. It was a case of him being stopped while being a publicly known partner of Greenwald.
      That affiliation, being the partner of someone who openly acknowledges being in possession of documents that could cause “incredible damage” (Greenwald’s own words) to the United States, put him on a “terrorist” watch list, as soon as the indictments were handed down for Snowden.
      When you steal classified intelligence information, the various international law enforcement organizations don’t distinguish between “terrorist” or “espionage”, you get lumped in to the same boat….and put on the same lists.

      • Gunnut2600

        As a person who flies in and out of Heathrow and other parts of Europe on a regular basis, the notion that profiling does not stop men of color regularly at an airport HILARIOUS.

        I work for a company that is multinational. Currently my work crew includes two men from India, one from the Philippines, one from Thailand, and three from the US, including myself. The travel agency which our company utilizes has to make sure to include very long layover periods when we fly in and out of England due to the regular nature of my co-workers getting stopped for being brown…or Muslim…or being confused as either.

        I was once held for 12 fucking hours in Heathrow because I flew out of the Middle East from a project…and I had a full beard. Where the fuck I was suppose to get a fucking shaving kit in the middle of the fucking Yemen desert, I have no clue.

        Ain’t no racism like good ol’England racism.

        • quark

          Saying that this one particular brown skinned individual was stopped because of known associations (and prior babbling by Greenwald about giving him e-copies of these documents btw) is not in any way shape or manner the same as saying or even implying that profiling does not occur on other occations.

          When you make up shit and pretend the person you are debating said it when they did not it is an epic straw-man fail and you expose the incredible weakness of your position which requires this level of dishonesty.

          • Gunnut2600

            In all seriousness, the previous person indicated that their view was that Miranda was not singled out because of his skin color but his association to Glenn Greenwald.

            Its a valid point of view.

            I shared my view that I would not be surprised if Mr. Miranda was not originally singled out because of his skin color, they then ran his name, it flagged, hence he was detained. I made no comment on the validity of his detainment.

            I have this view because myself and my co-workers have been detained over our appearance vice any actual security reason. I travel about 10 months out of the year as a field engineer. I practically live out of an airport. If its one thing I know its airport security.

            At no time in my respond did I imply that Mr/Mrs Blackdaug has or indicating a view that asserts the position that racial profiling does not exist.

            I apologize if I caused offense to you or Blackdaug. I think however that if you re-read my original comment, you would realize that you are attaching a position to it that was not the point.

            I also believe that you need to learn what the term “straw-man argument” actually means…though its okay…lots of people like to throw it around incorrectly all the time.

        • gn

          GTFOH; please do not even attempt to hide Greenwald & Co. behind legitimate and valid racial profiling concerns. Most people subject to race profiling are innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Not so Greenwald and his crew.

          • chilisize

            So when was “Greenwald & Co,” found guilty by anyone of any wrongdoing?

            I’ll wait, but show your work.

          • gn

            Did Snowden steal the data?

          • Badgerite

            See Blackdaug’s comments. I believe he covered this. Their association with a wanted fugitive and all. Watchlists. etc.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            The being found guilty part happens at the end of a trial. Miranda was at the being a suspect or person of interest part. Law enforcement can legally detain and question persons in those two categories.

            Since it appears that the stolen data that he actually had was seized, and he was let go, he should consider himself to be quite lucky right now; though it may have been a bit of a downer for him and Greenwald that he was determined to be so unimportant.

          • chilisize

            SInce *you have no idea* what was or was not “seized,” you should consider yourself… far less informed than you are currently pretending to be.

          • Gunnut2600

            This actually brings up a very interesting aspect to discuss. You seem to imply that only innocent people can be racially profiled…as if racially profiling is okay if the person is or has committing an offense in the past.

            Is this a clear exposition of your views? I do not want to misrepresent them in any way and apologize if I have.

          • gn

            What a ridiculous question. The entire notion of racial profiling is that it is okay to impute criminality onto an entire group based on race, and subject that entire group to be collectively punished for the wrongdoing of the few. It is ludicrous to suggest that British authorities are unaware of Miranda’s identity (and the identity of the entire Snowden ring) and thus racially profiled Miranda. Completely out of this universe.

          • Gunnut2600

            But that is the view for a large number of Americans, that racial profiling is okay because the large net captures enough guilty people that it is justified. That is essentially the case made by the New York City Police department.

            In West Baltimore, where I grew up, a similar argument is made to justify not addressing the violent crime rate. Since the majority of victims are involved in illicit drug sales, there is justification for a lack of response or investigation by police.

            Similarly, many in the US have no problem with harassing people who look like Muslims at security checkpoints because of the implication that terrorism in the US is cause by Muslim extremist…which is not the case as terrorism in the US is caused by a wide variety of individuals from various backgrounds and ideology.

            My previous question was in regards to racial profiling in general and not with Mr. Miranda or Glenn Greenwald. Again, if someone is caught who has a criminal record, or in the act of committing a crime, through the use of racial profiling, is it justified?

    • FlipYrWhig

      I uprated you for explaining the Terrorism Act. I don’t know about the profiling claim, though.

    • JarekAF

      this was a deliberate set-up by Greenwald for the express purpose of writing this story.

      A deliberate set up by Greenwald? Are you on crazy pills? The UK gave the US a heads up. And you think Greenwald orchestrated this? WTF

  • mrbrink

    So, they’re back to blackmailing the U.S. government? Awesome plan. That’s something I can really get behind. Up yours, government hassles! I want a centaur!

    Didn’t everyone know that Greenwald’s partner was up to some amateurish cloak and dagger shit? Like, we’re supposed to be shocked to find out Miranda wasn’t some innocent frequent flyer? Are the bullshit detectors malfunctioning because of Greenwald’s magnetic force?

    • Richard_thunderbay

      It will be very interesting to see if any extortion threats are issued before Manning is sentenced, though I suspect that Wikileaks has simply thrown him under the bus.

      • chilisize

        Check in when Greenwald is charged with actual, rather than *imaginary* “extortion”

    • blackdaug

      I too am pretty mystified by the mystification of people who are wondering how and why he was detained?
      Was Greenwald’s magical force field of journalism supposed to cast its protection over his partner?
      There is a man, lets call him “Glenn”, who has publicly announced that he is in possession of reams of classified government information (information the government has stated could be damaging to intelligence operations worldwide) at all times (remember he says he has the “dead mans switch as well”).
      The government considers that information to be “stolen” property, and has issued indictments against the man who stole it…in all its forms, copies, clones ect…
      Therefore, Glenn (the recipient of the stolen property) and all of his known associates are on a “list”. A list that has been distributed to Interpol and all other international law enforcement agencies.
      Glenn’s partners name was most assuredly on said list, with instructions to detain and examine any and all data storage devices that might be in his possession.
      I am sure Snowdens girlfriend, his parents, and any other number of people associated with this theft, are on that list.
      This is surprising? Glenn and company think they get a free pass…..because why? It wasnt surprising to Glenn, or he would have transported the information himself!
      Snowden stole property. The property he stole was information He transferred it or copies of it to GG after fleeing the country! The government is going to do everything allowed by international law to recover that property.

      • quark

        Greenwald himself had already indicated that he might stash e-copies with his partner.

        This entire episode smells of a Greenwald setup so he could play victim, be outraged and get more PR for his whining.

        • 624LC .

          And cue idiots like chill size to do what they do best- man the comments board and spin,baby, spin.

          • chilisize

            So asking Bob Cesca or one of his dim little buddies to back up their claims is “spin”?

            Explain that one to me.

          • 624LC .

            As soon as you explain to me how using your spouse to transport stolen documents is appropriate.

          • chilisize

            That’s easy: First, *you don’t know what he was “transporting.” Next, I’m pretty sure that like many, many, adult couples, the both of them support each other in their endeavors, and Miranda was a willing and informed participant in *whatever* they were working on together.

            Your attempt to portray him as somehow hoodwinked or duped is just evidence of a childish way of arguing.

          • 624LC .

            I didn’t portray him as anything. I think it is sleazy. Since we are playing paranoid here, suppose he got kidnapped or killed? Is that what he signed up for? It doesn’t matter what this creep greenwald does, his fanboys are just fine with it. As long as it proves a paranoid driven point or gets you all in a lather imagining some totalitarian state. Pathetic . ..

          • Badgerite

            His expenses were PAID by the Guardian. The Guardian does not pay people to travel to Berlin and back to Rio for no reason. Of course he was transporting something.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            The only other explanation is that Greenwald was defrauding the Guardian. Would chilli care to argue that that is the explanation?

          • Lex

            and that proves what

          • Badgerite

            That it was not a personal trip. That he was acting in the furtherance of the Guardians work ( I’m guessing, but probably the Snowden story) and most likely was carrying some of those well known incriminating documents around with him at the time. At the very least, it is a probability.

          • DaeguDave

            It is not being reported by this “objective” blog as a probability, it is being stated as a fact.

          • chilisize

            “something,” is in itself speculation. You simply don’t know *if* he was transporting *anything* for The Guardian, much less “top secret national security” anything.

          • DaeguDave

            You know that the documents that were confiscated are “stolen,” right? You’ve seen them, and you have absolute certainty that they are what the UK and US govt’s are looking for. Right? Right?

          • 624LC .

            You are embarassing yourself. But you are a fan of greenwald, so no surprise there.

          • Ianb007

            Even Greenwald admits the stuff he was carrying was the classified documents from Snowden. Those documents were stolen by Snowden. You’re arguing a mute point. The nature of the documents have already been established.

      • chilisize

        Pretty sure that if the London police catch a bank robber, they hold on to it for more than nine hours.

      • chilisize

        Everyone who knows you is mystified as to how you make it through a day without being run down by traffic.

        • blackdaug

          Took you all night to come up with that?
          Is that your avatar, or are you actually a bowl of soup?

        • 624LC .

          And everyone who knows you is mystified on your inability to get up from your parents’ couch.

          • chilisize

            That would be a feat, I live half a world away from either of my parents’ couches.

            But yeah, stale third-hand jokes will have to do when *you’ve got nothin’…

          • 624LC .

            Yeah, I am sure you do live “far away” – …you are so accomplished and great and thank you for taking time out of your day mastering the art of nuclear fusion to spin for Greenwald and blah, blah. Yeah, you are right – you got nothin’…

          • chilisize

            So saying that I live far from my parents is claiming to be “accomplished”?

            Maybe that *does* pass for accomplishment in your cozy little suburb. I was just telling you how it is, in response to your third-rate “living on your mom’s couch” crack.

            Please get some material that wasn’t coined in the waning days of the twentieth century, then we can all have some big yucks.

          • 624LC .

            I think that the only accomplishment you have is an inability to resist getting in the last word. A sign of a very insecure person , apparently…

          • chilisize

            Really bugs you doesn’t it. I await your reply.

      • DaeguDave

        There is a journalist, let’s call him Glenn. He is actually a pretty smart guy, can be a bit overbearing, but not dumb. You really think he would send “top secret” documents with his partner to bring back from Germany? The only idiots in this whole scenario are the commenters on this blog who think Greenwald is that stupid.

        • stacib23

          Actually, I don’t think they were “top secret” documents. I think it was just more of the same. As you say, GG is a smart guy, and even more, he is a lawyer. He KNEW his partner would be stopped, and that scenario fulfilled every wet dream he has had during this entire fiasco. Now, he gets to point to a government and say to his believers “See, I told you so”.

          I won’t call you an idiot, but you could be a bit off about this.

    • first last

      ” Up yours, government hassles! I want a centaur!”

      I am stealing this.

  • Tom Blue

    Notice that Miranda is a brown person. My theory is he was rousted in a routine profiling, where he was discovered to be carrying stolen top secret documents. And why wouldn’t they question for a while someone found to have stolen top secret documents on their person? Most people, who are questioned for an hour, aren’t carrying anything of the sort, nothing illegal or of interest,. That’s probably why they are let go after an hour, and this dude was questioned for longer. I mean, why wouldn’t they have a lot of questions for him? Like, where did you get these top secret documents that were stolen in Hawaii last April?

    Brown people are rousted in this manner every single day — on travel, driving along, walking on the street, sitting in their driveway — so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that this guy was rousted. That’s just welcome to my world for us brown folks. No, we don’t like it.

    It’s great to see all the outrage about this kind of rousting. I hope it doesn’t wane after this one incident. Cause millions and millions of people are routinely rousted in this manner every single day.

    • Tom Blue

      Adding, isn’t it, or is it, illegal to be carrying stolen government documents internationally? I wonder, would the Brits just let *me* go after 9 hours if I were caught smuggling stolen documents? (Which I hasten to add, I would never, ever, ever do.)

    • ultraviolet_uk

      I’d be fascinated to know why the downvotes for your post. As a white Brit who has regularly seen this sort of abuse of anti-terrorism legislation to harass brown people – and in one tragic case to shoot them dead and then lie about them for years – it seems entirely plausible to me. Of course, if that is the case, it would undermine the argument that this was a staged stunt by Greeenwald, and even the argument that he was stupid to think he could get away with this, because but for a random stop he would have done!

      • blackdaug

        I didn’t downvote him, but I imagine it is because he suggested this was a case of racial profiling…which is just the kind of thing Greenwald would love everybody to jump on.
        Greenwald used his partner (a pretty craven move in itself), to transfer information to his journalistic partner in another country. Of course both his partners, his parents, his friends…everybody he knows has been on a search and detain list since the day he announced he had these documents in his possession.
        Airport based international law enforcement have been extremely cooperative with each other since a group of guys hijacked planes and flew them into buildings over here. Nobody wants to see that kind of thing happen in their country.
        So when our FBI puts out a watch for someone they are investigating, it goes out everywhere, and given the propensity for international travel, the players in this incident seem to have, they cast a pretty big net.
        The same would apply if Scotland Yard did it.

        • Tom Blue

          Well, I was kind of making a point that probably they didn’t know who he was at the time. (Just a theory.) I myself didn’t know what Greenwald’s partner looked like before today. I knew he was Brazilian. Maybe it is widely known what Miranda looks like, everyone knew except me. I don’t know.

          What gets me is everyone being outraged at, when they found him smuggling stolen spy docs on his person, that they kept him the max amount of time. I mean, what’s outrageous about that? They probably had to contact the US feds and see if they wanted to question the guy too.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            I would be very interested to know one way or the other. It is very common for people who look like Miranda to be stopped by anti-terrorism officials:

            http://www.stop-watch.org/uploads/documents/Factsheet_-_Schedule_7.pdf
            I disagree with blackdaug that Greenwald would want this to be a case of racial profiling. Because that would mean it was a legitimate generic story about the evils of racial profiling. Greenwald absolutely wants Miranda to have been stopped because he is Greenwald’s partner, as that keeps the story about him and how he is being victimised for trying to save America from the evil Government.

          • Tom Blue

            I agree. Greenwald is desperate to make this into a big bad jackbooted government goons out to get him story.

            Seems like on first pass, he has sucked everyone into that, even Mr. Cesca somewhat. I personally don’t think it’s out of line to detain someone for further questioning who has been found to be in possession of stolen documents, and that’s regardless of whether they recognized him or if it was a chance racial profiling roust. “Oh! Look at what we have here!”

            Like randomly stopping someone with cantaloupe legs and finding dope on the person.

          • chilisize

            If the documents were “stolen,” certainly if they were “stolen top secret” documents, Miranda would still be in stir. He is not.

          • Tom Blue

            According to the story, airport security tried to get a 48-hour arrest warrant and was denied.

            I don’t really get your irrational rage and your relentless attacks on other commenters.

          • chilisize

            Seems that being in possession of really real “top secret national security documents” would have done the trick.

            Wonder what went wrong?

          • blackdaug

            So you are not the same repetitive obtuse troll, who called people “dimwits”, “dickish” and and worried about their “stench”?
            I could go pick up some earlier examples of your work to put up, but what would be point.
            If you cant take it, don’t dish it out……worthless troll.

          • chilisize

            I think I called *you* a dimwit, and referred to *your* stench, after the *withering* and of course hilarious dull-eighth-grader style comments re my mother you addressed to me, you big meanie.

            And yes, I did call Chez “dickish.” Weeks ago. I’m certain he really appreciates a sharp guy like you defending his honor, such as it is.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            That is the one key element of this story that doesn’t add up for me.
            But that in itself does not necessarily make the stop and the detention unreasonable; and sadly with our Terrorism Act, NOTHING could make it unlawful.

          • blackdaug

            Think of it this way. Greenwald’s intent was to use his husband as a two way courier for Snowden info to his partner . He admits it in the Times article.(For the idiot who keeps coming back and saying where is the proof)!
            He didn’t really plan on hubby getting caught, because he wasn’t smart enough to realize everybody he knows has been on a watch list from day one…….but, his partner being Brazillian just adds an extra log for the fire if he does get caught.
            Greenwald can scream profiling! jack booted racial oppression! in addition to the usual whining he has done.
            His partner didn’t have to be dark skinned to be pulled out. His name is public knowledge, and those various law enforcement agencies that are still on this open case, added him to the list early on.
            As for the “Why is he not under arrest if it was classified information!”
            It is classified information here, internationally it is just reported stolen property, and not something you could easily assign a monetary value to.
            I imagine the Brits figured that out, and settled for just confiscating the information. Arresting him would have meant trying to charge him with something like theft….and that would have been a hard case to pull with something that amounts to intellectual property.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            It’s a bit ironic that someone who supposedly believes that the NSA is spying on American citizens and gathering large amounts of information on them for nefarious purposes thought that he could play spy vs. spy by sending his partner to rendezvous with known co-conspirators by way of commercial airlines.

          • blackdaug

            If someone had asked me 5 days ago..or 3 months ago this question:
            Do you think Snowden’s family and friend’s and Greenwald’s family and friends might be on some kind of international search and detain list distributed to airport based law enforcement worldwide in order to recover this stolen classified intelligence information…..my answer would have been:
            Duh!
            People get put on those list for having the wrong name or a host of other innocuous bullshit reasons. Of course border hopping data thieves and all their known associates are on every damn list in every airport in the world!

          • stacib23

            I actually thought that was the most funny part about this entire Snowden fiasco – the man who complains about the government watching him has now opened up everybody he knows to government surveillance. They should be really pissed at him. They were floating through life like regular nobodies, and because of their association with ES, they many no longer be grains of sand on a beach but the actual beach. It cracks me up.

          • ultraviolet_uk

            You may well be right that that is why he wasn’t arrested. And the further information that is emerging seems to make it clear that this was a targeted stop, not a random one.

          • chilisize

            “Think of it this way. Greenwald’s intent was to use his husband as a two way courier for Snowden info to his partner .”

            Hilarious. Why with anyone with intelligence enough to read those words be simultaneously stupid enough to “think of it” the way you want to present it here?

            *You don’t know* what Miranda was or wasn’t doing. That’s obvious.

            Repeating what you don’t know in the most tendentious manner your pea brain can muster enlightens exactly *nobody*

          • blackdaug

            You know, you really are an annoying piece of shit. I am going to make a special project out of you.

          • chilisize

            Good. Butchering the English language and employ reasoning that would embarrass *mildew* while attempting rote 3rd hand humor is a “special project” you are uniquely suited to.

            I will enjoy the show.

        • naugiedoggie

          So, Greenwald used his partner, as in — his partner was too lame to say, “No, I don’t want to”? World class conclusion jumping like that says more about you than about Greenwald. It just could not have happened that Miranda said, “Hey, what can I do to help?” Hell, no.

          You people are a heady stew of complacency, bigotry and intellectual fraud. You need not worry that the Cesca/Obama axis will ever be called upon to take a stand against wrongful gov’t actions. Your friends in high places have got you covered.

          • PinkamenaPanic

            You forgot to call us all paid shills and sheeple.

          • Lex

            paid shills you are not just a partisan hack , a sheeble you are not you just a vile hypocrite who does not care about govermental abuse of power as long it is team democrat doing it

          • PinkamenaPanic

            Good try, but not quite up to par.

          • naugiedoggie

            Well, your Cesca/Obama Axis slander monkey pals have already called me: moron, acolyte-troll, fucking moron, imbecile and assorted other euphemisms for intelligent conversation. I thought you had cornered the market on that kind of talk. My bad.

          • blackdaug

            You are quite the “heady stew” yourself.
            The Cesca / Obama axis? Really?
            “Friends in high places have got you covered?”
            Has that mouse hat got plenty of tinfoil lining it …little girl?
            Pathetic paranoid troll is pathetic.

          • naugiedoggie

            Thanks for demonstrating the highest level of intellectual achievement in the Axis. I really like the little girl, that’s a nice touch. One of the worst insults you can think of is to label a grown man, a little girl.

            What have you got against little girls?

    • chilisize

      “…stolen top secret documents.”

      Can you back that up besides Mr Cesca’s unsubstantiated claim?

      • blackdaug

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?hp
        “All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.” Mr. Greenwald said

        • chilisize

          Oh, so now everything Greenwald says is to be believed 110%.

          And the notion that all of the materials “provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden” consist, if not 110%, then at least 100%, of “stolen top secret national security documents”?

          Cute.

          • blackdaug

            So when Greenwald tell the Times, it was all information that Snowden gave him, and we know all of that information was classified, we dont believe him?
            …..and now all of the information Snowden took was not classified?
            Sorry I responded to you…I didn’t know you were an idiot.

          • chilisize

            You didn’t and you don’t. You just want to pretend everything Mr Cesca pulls out of his boohiney is a double chocolate gold nugget.

            I mean how credulous does one need to be to believe that transporting “top secret national security documents” through Heathrow gets you nothing more than nine hours detention?

            If it were in fact established that these documents were that, the man would still be locked up.

          • blackdaug

            Yep. You are an idiot.
            You must be forgetting our last encounter:

            chilisize to Chez Pazienza
            If you say so; you’re the dickish expert.
            blackdaug to chilisize
            If you say so, since apparently you are a dick.
            chilisize to blackdaug
            Ouch! Guess I should have seen that one coming!

          • chilisize

            Oh, you are the feller who composed that awesome comeback!

            I should have recognized you!

          • blackdaug

            Set em up again. Your pretty easy.

          • chilisize

            Well, with material like that, why would you want to bother with little old me? I mean the level of wordplay you operate on, it must be a real snooze to swat my little would-be bons mots.

            Dimwit.

          • blackdaug

            Thanks for playing. Say hello to your ma for me.

          • chilisize

            Please explain this reference to my “ma,” I must admit that my sense of humor is rudimentary and I’m not up on all the latest little “memes” the kids are twinkling and texturing to each other these days.

            I’m certain it will be hilarious as soon as it’s explained to me.

          • blackdaug

            ” I must admit that my sense of humor is rudimentary and I’m not up on all the latest little “memes””

            Should I get off your yard now?

          • chilisize

            I hadn’t noticed you were there. Usually the stench is the first clue, must have the winds in my favor today.

          • blackdaug

            The aura of stupid you emit you must have dulled the rest of your senses.

          • Badgerite

            So, you are saying that Greenwald made that up. Ok. But there is no reason why UK authorities would not act on what he says whether 110% true or not.

          • chilisize

            I’m saying that Mr Cesca *made that up.*

      • Tom Blue

        “All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.”

        from Charlie Savage’s story. You calling Charlie Savage a liar?

        • chilisize

          I’m saying that Occam would make hamburger out of the claim that Charlie Savage is saying that Miranda was caught with “top secret national security” docs.

    • gn

      Snowden stole a massive amount of intelligence. Authorities worldwide know precisely who every single person in that ring is. I find it completely outrageous to try to link this story in with racial profiling. Trayvon Martin, innocent, minding his business, on his way home at 7pm, was racially profiled. Millions of black and brown males in NYC have been racially profiled, and 98.5% of those encounters did not result in seizure of an illegal weapon. Greenwald and Miranda and the rest of that crew are not being racially profiled. They are trafficking in stolen intel.

      • Tom Blue

        Perhaps you misunderstand me. I said that he might have originally been detained because he was traveling while brown. You know, rousted going through airport security because of the way he looks. I’m brown myself, and it happens to me all the time. It was just a proposed mechanism as to why he was originally detained.

        I fail to see how that is controversial. It is a fact of life for millions of people. I fail to grasp your outrage. It takes nothing away from the fact that he was smuggling stolen top secret government documents.

  • BlueTrooth

    Interesting twist that Glenn is shifting the spotlight on to Poitras. I can’t say I’m surprised. This story has all kinds of potential for a disastrous end when you retrace the steps of how this poorly executed “plan” was conceived. Poitras has an obsession for “creating the perception”. As we all know, perception is reality until reality intrudes upon the perception.

    • blackdaug

      Poitras has her own tale of airport detention woe to tell, after some interesting reporting she did from a war zone.
      She and Greenwald and everybody associated with them will be detained at airports from now until the end of time. What did they think was going to happen?

  • Frank van der Linden

    Physically transporting documents. How quaint. This probably reflects the (somewhat paranoid) belief that I have seen that the NSA is a at least a decade ahead of everybody in cryptography. People who believe this probably then also think that something like 4096 bit PGP encryption is also not quite safe, hence the physical transportation. In any case, while the UK overreacted, what did Greenwald and the Guardian expect? You gotta hand it to Greenwald, though: he is very good at creating hype. Sadly, aided by journalists who don’t seem to have truth-seeking and nuance as their highest priority.

    • Maike Hudson

      “Physically transporting documents. How quaint.”
      My first thought: Mr. Miranda’s excuse for taking a nice trip on The Guardian’s dime.

    • naugiedoggie

      Even PK encryption is worthless when your friendly spy agency can just put a sniffer on your laptop or PC. Since this is legal in both the US and the UK, and it would take top-drawer IT skills to discover it, nobody knowing he or she is under investigation would assume safety in that regard. We don’t know that the documents were not encrypted on the thumb drives, either. Finally, possession of encrypted files is itself grounds for arrest if you refuse to divulge the key.

      I think the summary line for all of you people is that in the dispute, secret gov’t spying v citizen’s right to know, you’re on the side of secret gov’t spying. Good luck with that.

      • Badgerite

        I can’t quite figure out what your first point is, that the files were encrypted, in your view, and he should have been arrested and wasn’t so therefore it was harassment or what?

        When it is ‘secret government spying’ in an effort to track down and kill Al Qaeda operatives, or to stop cyber attacks on US infrastructure, then, yes, I am on the side of the US Government. What I need to know is that it is under the proper oversight of the law. Which I believe Mr. Snowden and his documents have demonstrated that it is.

        • naugiedoggie

          By definition, when it is secret, you know zip about whether or not the oversight is “proper.” Doh!

          And yet, you now are claiming that the actions of the far left extremist, whom you find so repulsive, proved that you were right to unquestioningly trust the gov’t to behave in secret as it would behave in public.

          We all know the old Franklin saw about those who give up liberty for safety. You’ve admitted you’re in that group; and that there is no Constitutional protection against tyrannical gov’t that you would not surrender, as long as the gov’t keeps you “safe” from those nasty terrorists.

          I’m a believer in the liberties protected by the Constitution; and especially, the 4th amendment. Thus, we clearly have nothing in common. I just hope that you surrender monkeys do not turn out to be the deciding factor in the nation’s future.

          • Badgerite

            Oversight is done by public representatives, not by the public at large. Some things are secret by law, that is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. What exactly are you proposing then, that all foreign intelligence capabilities be ended. That these agencies be limited to wiretapping old land lines and leave all digital traffic alone. What? Or do you think like Snowden that we can only spy on foreign entities if we are at war?

            Yes, I know about the old Franklin saw. It is not ME that has to be kept safe, you twit. If there is no country, there is no Constitution and especially no 4th Amendment. It was not ME who was attacked on 9/11. It was the country, It was New York, and Washington DC. 19 guys with box cutters took down ( as in down to the ground) 2 prominent buildings in New York, hit the Pentagon. The White House had to be evacuated and the last time I can remember that happening was the Cuban missile crisis. All air travel, public and private, was halted for days. 19 guys with box cutters. I was fine. I don’t live in New York or Washington. These people did not stop hitting the country because they stopped wanting to. They stopped because there are people who got ahead of them and stopped them. People who went after them. I don’t undervalue what they do or how important that may be to the survival of the country and the Constitution. You can ‘believe’ in the liberties of the Constitution all you want, like tinker bell, but somebody actually has to do the heavy lifting to see that the country, Constitution and all, is still standing at the end of the day. That would not be you. Or Glen Greenwald.

          • naugiedoggie

            I live in CT. I know people who had friends or acquaintances in the towers. In 2003, I stood at the edge of the hole where the towers once stood. My best friend here, wears a hand-crocheted American flag that he has worn every single day since 9-11-2011, in commemoration of the deaths. I am not the arrogant twit here, tinker bell.

            You let me know when you’re actually ready to do some heavy lifting, and not leave it up to self-appointed “guardians” to do it for you, in secret.

            “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
            – John Adams

            He knew what he was talking about. You don’t.

          • Badgerite

            No comment.

          • Badgerite

            No comment. I’ve already said what I have to say about this.

    • naugiedoggie

      Huh, the power of the ability to read. “Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, … The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, …”

      • Badgerite

        Of course not. They had reason to believe they may have contained stolen documents.

    • ChrisAndersen

      Sadly also aided by governments that are falling into his hype trap.

      I don’t trust Greenwald any more than I trust the NSA. But at least with the NSA I feel there is a measure of possible accountability.

    • stacib23

      They didn’t want to take the chance the NSA would miss the encrypted emails while perusing all of our data???

  • Richard_thunderbay

    I think the obvious intent here was to create an incident as a publicity stunt.