Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Bloggers pro-Obama and anti-Greenwald - A Distraction on Issue

by Oui Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 06:27:49 AM EST

.
Frenzy @BooMan based on emotion, not facts leads to farfetched opinions and a division of pro-Obama and anti-Greenwald bloggers, while the issue of rogue surveillance by the Authoritarian State gets a pass.

Edward Snowden Says Media Being Misled 'About My Situation'

(Huff Post) - Mattie Fein told The Wall Street Journal  on Thursday that Lon Snowden's legal team doesn't trust Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, the journalist at the center of the NSA story, or WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization that has advised Snowden in Russia. Fein also claimed Greenwald was trying to shop around an exclusive interview with Snowden for seven figures. Greenwald told the Journal Fein's claim was "defamatory."

Snowden said he'd like to correct the record regarding legal advice he's received.

    "I've been fortunate to have legal advice from an international team of some of the finest lawyers in the world, and to work with journalists whose integrity and courage are beyond question. There is no conflict amongst myself and any of the individuals or organizations with whom I have been involved."

Ben Wizner, director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, confirmed that the email received by The Huffington Post was from Snowden, who remains a fugitive in Russia after being granted temporary asylum.

In a later statement, The ACLU said the organization has been in contact with Snowden for several weeks, and at his request, is "playing a coordinating role to ensure that he receives appropriate legal advice and representation."

    "As we have said before, we believe that the information Mr. Snowden has disclosed about the nature, scope, and putative legal authorization of the NSA's surveillance operations has generated a remarkable and long-overdue public debate about the legality and propriety of the government's surveillance activities. The ACLU has long held the view that leaks to the press in the public interest should not be prosecutable under the nation's espionage laws."

Snowden's full statement on lawyers and father at CNN here.

Checks, Balances, and the National Security Agency

Greenwald does not claim to be an expert on encryption technology

Snowden only wanted to communicate securely using PGP encryption, for which Greenwald didn't have the proper software installed at the time. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Greenwald acknowledged that he's no expert in using such technology and said that Snowden even provided a step-by-step email and video to help secure their communication. At that point, however, Greenwald didn't know what his would-be source had (or didn't have) and continued to prioritize other stories instead.

Snowden also approached Laura Poitras, a filmmaker who is working on a trilogy about post-9/11 America and last year published a short documentary featuring NSA whistleblower William Binney on The New York Times' website. Both Poitras and Greenwald serve on the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an organization that supports independent journalism. Greenwald had written last year about the difficulties Poitras faced after she was put on a government watch list.

{Update} See also Secure Communications by ThatBritGuy

Continued below the fold ...

Detention of Guardian journalist's partner 'extraordinary', says MP Keith Vaz

(The Guardian) - The chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee has said he will write to police after the partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

He was held for almost nine hours and officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

Keith Vaz called the detention of Miranda "extraordinary" and said he would be writing immediately to police to request information about why Miranda was held under anti-terrorism laws when there appeared to be little evidence that he was involved in terrorism.

"It is an extraordinary twist to a very complicated story," Vaz told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday. "Of course it is right that the police and security services should question people if they have concerns or the basis of any concerns about what they are doing in the United Kingdom. What needs to happen pretty rapidly is we need to establish the full facts - now you have a complaint from Mr Greenwald and the Brazilian government. They indeed have said they are concerned at the use of terrorism legislation for something that does not appear to relate to terrorism, so it needs to be clarified, and clarified quickly."

Vaz said he was not aware that personal property could be confiscated under the laws.

    Repeal Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000

    By virtue of the UK's membership of the European Union all UK citizens have a right to freedom of movement within the EU. These Schedule 7 powers are in direct conflict with this right. Schedule 7 is also in direct conflict with Article 5 (the right not to be arrested without just cause) and Article 8 (the right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights (an international obligation which was agreed after WWII to prevent the re-emergence of Nazism and which Winston Churchill was instrumental in creating).

    Speaking of Nazism, these Schedule 7 powers are worthy of the Gestapo, or for that matter the Stasi (in communist E Germany). It has always been a cornerstone of the law in democratic countries that people cannot be arrested and their property seized purely on the whim of an official. But Schedule 7 allows precisely that. It is the kind of law that dictators and despots introduce. And we are all at risk every time we travel across our borders.

Can laptops be seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000?

Summary

The Act reforms and extends previous counter-terrorist legislation, and puts it largely on a permanent basis. The previous legislation concerned is:

  • the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 4) ("the PTA");
  • the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (c. 22) ("the EPA"); and
  • sections 1 to 4 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 (c. 40).

The Act builds on the proposals in the Government's consultation document Legislation against terrorism (Cm 4178), published in December 1998. The consultation document in turn responded to Lord Lloyd of Berwick's Inquiry into legislation against terrorism  (Cm 3420), published in October 1996.

Juan Cole: "Greenwald Partner falsely detained as Terrorist: How to Create a Dictatorship"

See earlier discussion:
• Snowden, Greenwald and the Third Man by Bjinse
• Lavabit and the Strong Arm of Big Brother USA
• Yesterday's comments - War on Journalists

Display:
Bloggers pro-Obama and anti-Greenwald - A Distraction on Issue | 90 comments (87 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Times Have Changed, NSA Whistleblower Tice (none / 0)
.
NSA: Another Bomb to Drop

(BooMan) May 13, 2006 - The Republicans around Sen. Warner have a decision to make. If they assess Russell Tice to be credible, they need to decide how many more shocking, hard to believe violations of our civil rights they are willing to gloss over. They need to decide if Michael Hayden deserves to become DCI, or whether his nomination was really the Bush administration's plea to be finally put of their misery and removed from office.

John Warner has more integrity than your average Republican in Washington. I hope he doesn't sweep this under the rug or make apologies for it, or, worst of all, call Tice crazy. I don't think Tice is lying.

It will be interesting to see if CheneyCo. moves to prevent Tice from meeting with the Armed Services Committee. I have a feeling they have too much on their plate right now to keep things under control.

Privacy? You Don't Need No Stinking Privacy!  by Steven D



Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 08:10:24 AM EST
Definitely Competing with George Bush (none / 0)
.
Why does Obama hate whistleblowers and investigative journalists?

Recent diary here @EuropeanTribune and covered @BooMan ...

Never again need to ask why Assange sought refuge in Ecuador Embassy in London, President Evo Morales will ask for MIG-29 travel companions, Snowdon decided to stay put in Moscow, more persons of interest will seek alternative ways to communicate.

Cross-posted from BooMan's post - The Greenwald Drama Ramps Up.

 
"Of course I came across Cass Sunstein and see him as a "nutty"  professor from Harvard who apparently has much influence on Barack Obama's thinking. He also has worked in the Obama administration. I'm contemplating a diary on Barack Obama and Sunstein in relation to the harsh stance vs whistleblowers Manning/Snowden and investigative journalists."

Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule, Obama, and Conspiracy Theories  by Lisa Pease
[aka blogger Real History Lisa @BooMan]

A strange couple, Cass Sustein is married to Samantha Power, our new ambassador to the UN.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 09:46:14 AM EST
Journalism A 'Terrorist' Occupation? (none / 0)
.
Is Glenn Greenwald's journalism now viewed as a 'terrorist' occupation?

(Guardian) - The detention at Heathrow on Sunday of the Brazilian David Miranda is the sort of treatment western politicians love to deplore in Putin's Russia or Ahmadinejad's Iran. His "offence" under the 2000 Terrorism Act was apparently to be the partner of a journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who had reported for the Guardian on material released by the American whistleblower, Edward Snowden. We must assume the Americans asked the British government to nab him, shake him down and take his personal effects.

Miranda's phone and laptop were confiscated and he was held incommunicado, without access to friends or lawyer, for the maximum nine hours allowed under law. It is the airport equivalent of smashing into someone's flat, rifling through their drawers and stealing papers and documents. It is simple harassment and intimidation.

Greenwald himself is not known to have committed any offence, unless journalism is now a "terrorist" occupation in the eyes of British and American politicians. As for Miranda, his only offence seems to have been to be part of his family. Harassing the family of those who have upset authority is the most obscene form of state terrorism.

Last month, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, airily excused the apparently illegal hoovering of internet traffic by British and American spies on the grounds that "the innocent have nothing to fear," the motto of police states down the ages. Hague's apologists explained that he was a nice chap really, but that relations with America trumped every libertarian card.

Labour demands review of anti-terror powers

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said ministers must find out whether anti-terror laws had been "misused", after Miranda was held for nine hours by authorities at Heathrow airport under the Terrorism Act. Cooper said public support for the schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act could be undermined if there is a perception it is not being used for the right purposes. "Any suggestion that terror powers are being misused must be investigated and clarified urgently," she said. "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse.

"The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson [pdf], has already warned of the importance of using schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act appropriately and proportionately. The purpose of schedule 7 is to determine whether or not someone is involved in or associated with terror activity. The Home Office and police need to explain rapidly how they can justify using that purpose under the terrorism legislation to detain David Miranda for nine hours. This has caused considerable consternation and swift answers are needed.

Greenwald received a call from somebody identifying himself as a security official for the UK government at Heathrow airport.



Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 09:47:19 AM EST
Andrew Sullivan has flip-flopped (4.00 / 6)
Cameron Proves Greenwald Right

In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.

You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed. You have broken the trust that enables any such legislation to survive in a democracy. By so doing, you have attacked British democracy itself. What on earth do you have to say for yourself? And were you, in any way, encouraged by the US administration to do such a thing?



<sub>It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II</sub>
by eurogreen on Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 09:49:45 AM EST
Re: Detention of David Miranda (4.00 / 3)
Greenwald says police quizzed partner about his reporting   BBC

Brazil says the detention under British terror laws of one of its citizens at London's Heathrow airport caused "grave concern" and was "unjustified".

David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who published documents leaked by Edward Snowden, was held at Heathrow for nine hours on his way to Rio de Janeiro.

He reportedly had his mobile phone, laptop, DVDs and other items seized.

Speaking to the BBC Mr Greenwald said: "They spent the entire day asking about the reporting I was doing and other Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories."


Wouldn't be the first time someone named Miranda became the focus of outcry over police overreach.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 04:51:31 PM EST
White House Denies Involvement - Talk to British (none / 0)
.
White House Won't Condemn Detention Of Glenn Greenwald's Partner

(TIME) - White House spokesman Josh Earnest says the United States did not ask British authorities to question Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda but they were informed before he was detained.

Earnest said there were "classified, confidential conversations" around the detention, but would not state whether the U.S. government expressed displeasure with the action.  He would not say why the British informed the American government before the detention.

Earnest would not say whether U.S. intelligence services have reviewed any documents obtained from Miranda's devices. "I'm just not in a position to talk to you about the conversations between British law enforcement officials and American law enforcement officials," he said.

Earnest denied that the U.S. government was involved in the decision to detain Miranda. "What you're referring to is a law enforcement action that was taken by the British government," Earnest said. "The United States was not involved in that decision or in that action."

Earnest would not state whether Miranda is on any U.S.-government operated travel watch-lists.

White House: US was given 'heads up' before David Miranda detained

(Guardian) - In his first interview since returning to his home in Rio de Janeiro early on Monday, David Miranda has accused Britain of a "total abuse of power" for interrogating him for almost nine hours at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act.

Miranda said that British authorities had pandered to the US in trying to intimidate him and force him to reveal the passwords to his computer and mobile phone.

Reporters without borders, the press freedom group, has added its voice to the criticism over the UK government's action.

"The world's most repressive states often identify journalism with terrorism and now the British authorities have crossed a red line by resorting to this practice," the organisation said in an article on its website.

"We are very disturbed by this unacceptable violation of the UK's obligations to respect freedom of information and the confidentiality of journalists' sources. By acting in this arbitrary way, the British authorities have just emphasized how necessary and legitimate Snowden's and Greenwald's revelations were."

A petition launched by 'Four Lions' actor Adeel Akhtar on Change.org, calling for the British government to review how it uses Schedule 7, has garnered over 23,000 signatures in just a few hours.

The petition calls for a review of how authorities use the section of the Terrorism Act 2000 under which David Miranda was detained on Sunday. "Being detained by authorities can be terrifying for an innocent person."

Pundits react to news on David Miranda's detention



Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Mon Aug 19th, 2013 at 05:38:31 PM EST
Bizarre extra (4.00 / 6)
In a comment on the Miranda detainment, Alan Rusbridger, editor at the Guardian, subsequently reveals how GCHQ members dropped by at the Guardian's office and smashed computers to bits.

David Miranda, schedule 7 and the danger that all reporters now face | Alan Rusbridger | Comment is free | The Guardian

A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.

The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route - by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks - the thumb drive and the first amendment - had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?

The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred - with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

by Bjinse on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:07:28 AM EST
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 2)
WTF is going on?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:17:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Guardian editor interviewed by BBC (none / 1)
David Miranda detention - latest developments and reaction | Politics | theguardian.com

Rusbridger says he spoke to senior Whitehall officials about this.

Q: Did this go straight to Number 10?

Yes, says Rusbridger.

Q: And they said destroy the material or give it back to them?

Yes, says Rusbridger. He told them that the Guardian had other copies of the material abroad. That is why the paper was prepared to comply with the demand for the UK version to be destroyed.

That's it. The interview is now over.

Updated at 12.44pm BST

12.42pm BST

Rusbridger says the Edward Snowden material reveals fundamantal concerns about the powers of the state. These are important public issues. Even President Obama has recognised this. It is a subject of "high public importance". You cannot write about that if you do not have the facts.

Striking a balance between security, and the press's ability to write about this, is difficult.

But in the UK the state has acted against the Guardian in a way that would not be possible in the US.

The authorities threatened "prior restraint" - going to court to stop the Guardian publishing further material.



It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ye Goode Olde Intimidation Tactics (n/t) (4.00 / 3)


Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 3)
Home Office goons thought they could destroy the information by smashing some hardware... Sad really!

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 5)
Same logic applies to Miranda's detention : we'll destroy his dangerous leaked data by smashing his hardware into little bits, and that will make Britain a safer place.

Miranda had 'highly sensitive stolen information', Home Office suggests | World news | theguardian.com

The government has embarked on an aggressive offensive to justify the detention of David Miranda by suggesting that the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald possessed "highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism".

Amid calls from across the political spectrum for a fuller explanation of the treatment of Miranda at Heathrow after a detailed statement from the White House, the Home Office made clear that his nine-hour detention was fully justified on the grounds that he was carrying leaked documents.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning. This is an ongoing police inquiry so will not comment on the specifics."

Because that was undoubtedly the only copy of the information that the journalist Poitras wanted to send to the journalist Greenwald. And no doubt there is a shortage of mules to courier the data from Berlin to Brazil.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 07:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
That may not be the point: Why does being a relative of Glenn Greenwald place you above the law? (20 August, 2013)
When I first heard Miranda had been detained at Heathrow for nine hours under anti-terror legislation I thought it was a disgrace. I assumed, as did others, that it was an act of petty vengeance and intimidation aimed at the man who had become a very large thorn in the side of the UK and US governments through his publication of information supplied by former NSA employee Edward Snowden.

...

So, far from being a professional journalist working on a one of the most sensitive stories on the globe, Miranda was really just some bloke carrying something through customs for a mate. Which brings us to the first big issue. Presumably, Miranda was asked - as we all are at security - "have you been asked to carry anything for anyone else?" To which, if he was being honest, he should have replied: "Yes. But I don't know what it is. Could be to do with a film. Could be highly classified national security files. Can't be sure."

...

I've long ago stopped trying to get my head around what goes on at The Guardian. But we can safely assume that if Alan Rusbridger agreed to this drastic course of action it wasn't because the hard drives didn't contain anything more sensitive than Polly Toynbee's latest polemic against Iain Duncan Smith.

Admittedly, that's written by
a Blairite cuckoo
but this is on point

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 09:46:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 2)
So Miranda broke a law? What were the charges?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:08:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
Supposedly carrying contraband?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:16:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
Was he (supposedly) attempting to bring it into the UK?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 2)
I'm not sure whether this supports or contradicts the point you're trying to make. But it sure is germane...

Alan Rusbridger: David Miranda, schedule 7 and the danger that all reporters now face

Miranda was held for nine hours under schedule 7 of the UK's terror laws, which give enormous discretion to stop, search and question people who have no connection with "terror", as ordinarily understood. Suspects have no right to legal representation and may have their property confiscated for up to seven days. Under this measure - uniquely crafted for ports and airport transit areas - there are none of the checks and balances that apply once someone is in Britain proper. There is no need to arrest or charge anyone and there is no protection for journalists or their material. A transit lounge in Heathrow is a dangerous place to be.


Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 5)
I think he's confusing security (which you usually don't go through on a connecting flight) with customs (which you don't normally encounter on transit). And security are concerned with physical objects that might blow up, not files on your computer. I suspect that if you answered this question with "yes, some files with pictures of kittens", you're more likely to get in trouble for making fun of the system that commended for being honest.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 6)
Miranda was really just some bloke carrying something through customs for a mate.

Except that he wasn't. He was changing planes. He wasn't in the UK at all when he was apprehended (and had he entered the UK, they would have had a hard time finding a pretext to arrest him there.)

No, he was intercepted, opportunistically and illegitimately. Just like the NSA (and the GCSE) intercept our emails.

And I haven't identified any laws that Miranda might have been breaking.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 2)
I note international transit areas are in a weird legal limbo.  Snowden couldn't be extradited from Moscow because he "wasn't in Russia."  Miranda "wasn't in Britain" but, somehow, he was subject to British law.

IANAL but it looks like imposing the laws of a nation-state on an international transit area are subject to the whims of the government.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
A flight from within the European Union (Berlin), one is not in an International transit area.

Earlier Snowdon traveled from Hong Kong to Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
I'm likely wrong, depends on the flight/airline and the situation in Berlin! He could have gone through customs exiting Germany.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 3)
The UK is not in Schengen. All international passengers in the UK go through international transit areas in the UK, regardless of whether their flight is to/from a European destination. Ireland is the only possible exception.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Going through security again (none / 0)
Yes, my bad.

Everyone who boards an aircraft at Heathrow has to be security screened to UK government standards. Even if you've already been through security checks at another airport, we're obliged to screen you again before you fly from Heathrow.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Going through security again (none / 0)
Are you sure? This used to be the case for flights to the US, but I recently boarded a connecting flight in Munich and was waved through security. I suspect that the US has stopped doing this if you arrive from an airport that has standards they approve of.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 3)
And. Also:

"Could be highly classified national security files. Can't be sure."

Given that (if they existed), they were NSA files from the USA, in which country the possession of such files for journalistic purposes is not a crime, why would German security (they are the ones asking the question) or even UK security be concerned?

The answer is that here, as in so many instances, the UK is happy to do the dirty work that the USA can't do for itself. As, for example, the GCSE does surveillance of internet traffic as subcontractor for the NSA, doing stuff that would be illegal in the USA.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:24:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 10)
Miranda was really just some bloke carrying something through customs for a mate.

Nope. He was detained under an anti-terrorism law, that serves one purpose only: anti-terrorism. All other uses are unlawful.

Nine hours in the life of David Miranda | Jack of Kent

So schedule 7 provides a limited power to question and a limited power to detain.

Both the powers to question and to detain are conditional on the purpose of whether a person falls within section 40(1)(b) of the 2000 Act.

So the next question is fundamental - what does section 40(1)(b) say?

Section 40(1)(b) is a definition clause, and it provides the following definition of "terrorist":

a person who...is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Section 40(1)(b) thereby is a  limiting definition - the questioning (and any period of detention) under schedule 7 is for seeing if a person falls within this definition.  Accordingly, any questioning (and any period of detention) which is not for this specified purpose is outside the scope of the provision.

by Katrin on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 10)
Actually the catch-all clause is Section 58.

58 Collection of information.

(1)A person commits an offence if--
(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2)In this section "record" includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

Now, I'd guess the official interpretation is that the information held by Snowden falls under 58(1)(a) and (b).

Just as if someone decided to invent a new form of encryption, terrorists would 'likely' find it useful.

Apparently journalism doesn't count as a reasonable excuse as per 58(3).

Of course this applies to all kinds of legitimate applications and knowledge, including almost all kinds of computer security and/or encryption algorithms and/or commercial products.

Theoretically it could also apply to a chemistry textbook, or an electronic design textbook, or a Koran. I'd like to think those would be more of a stretch, although it's possible I'm being optimistic.

Note there's no limitation clause. If there's some likelihood the information could be useful, possession of any record of it is an offence, even if it's widely available elsewhere.

If you want to run a police state, it's a conveniently stupid piece of legislation.

The other creepy thing about it is that it dates from 2000, when there was very little public interest in terrorism.

Of course between this and goons turning up to smash hard drives, it's obvious we're not in Kansas any more.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 10:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
Taking and publishing photographs of railway installations could easily fall under that clause...

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 05:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Based on IRA terror and Omagh bombing (none / 1)
.
"The other creepy thing about it is that it dates from 2000, when there was very little public interest in terrorism."

Not quite true. Read my link from diary above:  

(BBC News) - Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former law lord, was asked in 1995 by the then Conservative Government to review terrorist law. His report was part of the process which led to the Labour Government's Terrorism Act 2000.

"The starting point for this really is the Terrorism Act of 2000 and that came after about 30 years of Irish terrorism and it was well thought out and it was comprehensive. And it was fair. That is the act we ought to be enforcing now instead of which, whenever a new terrorist event occurs, we start adding new things to that act."

"And that I think is a mistake. It started first immediately after the Omagh bombing and then it happened again after 9/11 in America and now it has happened again as a result of the terrorist activity of 7 July."

"I think it's important here just to get the actual language of the proposed offence. It says that a person commits an offence if he glories, exults, or celebrates an act of terrorism whether in the past or in the future. Now to me that is a very, very odd provision. I have never seen anything like it in an Act of Parliament. And I pity the poor judge ..."

By its wording the act is pretty open-ended, the reason why it is under review. I wonder what answers David Anderson will get from the government.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 06:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 4)
(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism,

Since I "collect information" about drone technology I guess I'd better avoid the UK.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:10:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 5)
Scientists and engineers to be rounded up and sent to detention camps in 5, 4, 3, ...

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
My laptop contains a fortran compiler... surely you could compile all kinds of terroristically-useful codes with that
by mustakissa on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 2)
Are you sure you said that?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
More to the point, are you sure of the jurisdiction in which you said it?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 4)
"We don't need no stinkin' jurisdiction."

       --  NaSoAp Handbook

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 4)
If there are any jurisdictions in which this makes me 'interesting' to the spooks, we're screwed anyway. But then, saying it like it is never made anyone win a popularity contest
by mustakissa on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
...and once they find libdvdcss on my machine, it's a one way ticket to Guantanamo
by mustakissa on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
If you had it on your machine, of course.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
And assuming you're in a juristriction that doesn't worry about minor details such as whether it's legal or not. I don't think any court has actually ruled it illegal, but that won't bother the authorities in Heathrow.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stolen information (4.00 / 8)
The Obama apologists in the affair fixate on the propaganda line on Greenwald & co possessing "stolen information". Nevermind that that information is evidence for large-scale stealing of citizen's information by the governments.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 5)
The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred - with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.

I'm afraid it's Rusbridge that doesn't understand an important feature of the digital age: the state can still get you in meatspace.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:27:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
I don't understand why the Guardian didn't challenge the government in the courts.
by IM on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 7)
Because apparently they would have had to abstain from publishing the information during the judicial process. So it was much smarter to let the spooks make asses of themselves by destroying the hardware.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 11:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
But the Guardian have set a precedent.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:47:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
That is exactly the problem.
by IM on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 07:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
Once again I have to disagree with what is an unfair comment. This time by Mig and I'm surprised 5 people gave this a 4.

While I disagree about some of his editorial decisions, Rusbridger is a smart guy and it was precisely because he understood the power of the state in "meatspace" that he had hardware with the files destroyed - absurd as this was. He knew that if he didn't surrender the files (which he had no intention of doing) or destroy them, the gov would start legal action - in meatspace - which could involve prior restraint and stop the Guardian publishing further stories.  See eurogreen's  comment and this interview with Rusbridger, particularly at 2.40 mins:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/aug/20/alan-rusbridger-miranda-snowden-nsa-gchq-video

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 02:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
You are correct, sir, though i'm sure Migs was just making a joke. Guardian decision was not made lightly, and prior restraint is lethal in this case.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:36:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Objection, yer honer (none / 0)
Not an idle joke in any case.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 4)
Rusbridge is arguing that because the internet is global and data can be copied and transmitted cheaply and instantly, the state's power in meatspace is unable to stop the dissemination of information.

Risbridge is wrong. First of all, he should have demanded a court order to destroy the hardware and/or the stored data. Second of all, the Guardian can publish from Brazil but that doesn't mean anyone in the UK will get to read it. In paper or online. After all, everyone browsing the net from Britain has to use a piece of actual hardware actually sitting in Britain a cell tower, a network port, an optical fibre connection, a DSL connection, an undersea wire, a satellite uplink. People have to use DNS servers and routers sitting physically in the UK.

What prevents the government from shutting down anyone who does not agree to insert a government sniffer unit in their hardware, with a gag order or a superinjunction or whatever they have in the UK that prevents people from even mentioning the fact that they have been gagged? Or else have their hardware destroyed, confiscated or sealed under the antiterrorism act?

The Great Firewall of China is coming soon to a united kigdom near you. Via meatspace. And there's nothing Rusbridge is going to do about it except brag that he can put his webserver in Brazil.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:47:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 6)
Migeru:
The Great Firewall of China is coming soon to a united kigdom near you. Via meatspace.

Friend of mine who at the time was in China could not access something funny, politically harmless. He noted that of course he could get around the Great Firewall, but that trying might bring unwelcome attention, so unless it was really, really important he was not going to. So yes, meatspace is where they get you and where they frigthen you to censor yourself.

I am not quite sure what the best strategy would have been, but if the choice will reamin one between testing the means judicially and printing I think setting up another paper in Brazil - Guardian Brazil or something - could be a way to ensure capability to do both. After all, you need to get the inforation on how you are being silenced out there, and Guardian Brazil maybe can get some timely leaks on exactly what goes on behind those locked court doors.

Reminds me of the 19th century (but these days, what doesn't?). For example:

Aftonbladet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it was first published in 1830 by Lars Johan Hierta, it was a tabloid that reported news and also criticised the new Swedish king Charles XIV John. The king stopped Aftonbladet from being printed and banned it. This was answered by starting the new newspaper "Det andra Aftonbladet" (The second Aftonbladet), which was subsequently banned, followed by new versions named in similar fashion until the newspaper had been renamed 26 times, after which it was allowed by the king.[2]

Or rather, after which the executive power gave up.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 4)
Juan Cole: Where is our Amsterdam? Lavabits, Snowden & Wikileaks Censorship recall age of Absolutism (08/09/2013)
The long struggle against censorship in the 18th century at the time of oppressive kings in Europe involved the hand-copying and circulation of unpublished anonymous manuscripts. Sometimes dangerous or proscribed books were printed in places beyond the reach of the French kings, in Amsterdam or Geneva.

The struggle against censorship was not won with the almost miraculous First Amendment to the US constitution. The amendment, which forbids the government to establish an official religion and prescribes freedom of speech, the press, and assembly only slowly over the subsequent two centuries actually came to mean in practice some of what the words seem to imply.

It only took a decade or so for the US government to abolish the First Amendment, taking us back to a censorship regime. It is not the censorship regime of the Sun King in France, but it more resembles that system than it resembles the world imagined in the First Amendment.



Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
America: Strange Folks (none / 0)
.
Strange folks living in the Americas, longing to return to the times of King George of Great Britain and the Tower of London. The manner how the "progressive" blog community reacts to Manning and Snowden. These two patriots should get the appreciation so deserved.

George Bush raising the laws of the Old West to how Washington needs to operate: Patriot Act, NSA spynetwork, invasion of Iraq, torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, forced feeding prisoners, etc. Obama continues these laws with more vengeance. Who is Cass Sustein?

Extrajudicial killing of US citizen Al-Awlaki in Yemen (plus 2 other US citizens) and the war crimes of drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. Who gets jailed for 35 years?

○ Support Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize
○ Toobin, CNN's Shill for the Establishment/NSA his bio

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 05:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 3)
Mig, you would have been better off to accept Crazy Horse's suggested escape route - viz: it was just a joke, instead of returning to the attack - on someone who clearly deserves support at the moment, not nasty little put-downs. Why is he "bragging" about publishing in Brazil, rather than just stating a possible option at the moment? No, he shouldn't have demanded a court order first, the point was to avoid the involvement of legal action as far as possible and the sacrifice of a few bits of hardware was a small price to pay for avoiding legal action and possible prior restraint.

Rusbridger happens to be the editor of a paper which has one of the pioneering and best news and opinion websites, which has taken on the gov over wikileaks and now Snowden/NSA stories. But you're sure he doesn't understand about the powers of gov in relation to the internet - don't you think you might be a little bit arrogant here ?

Rusbridger is talking about what seem to be possible courses of action NOW; he's not claiming they can get stories out and available in the UK WHATEVER the gov might do in the future. The gov is clearly embarrassed by the revelations so far and are reluctant to seem too heavy-handed, hence the civil servant saying "you've had your fun". They have also recently been influenced by the right-wing press's hypocritical defense of press freedom after the Leveson report, so they do not want to seem to be attacking that freedom too much and wouldn't get support from their usual mates in the right-wing media if they did.

I think there would be a lot of public outrage and pressure on the gov if they were shown to be blocking Guardian stories published from elsewhere - they would not want to seem to acting like the Chinese. But this is speculation about possible future scenarios, not evidence of Rusbridger' supposed ignorance, no better supported than was the criticism of Greenwald that he was supposedly "entirely ignorant of international treaties" - which turned out, as I suspected, to be false.

Having seen the kind of material involved in the wikileaks and Snowden/NSA stories, and having had to deal with various kinds of gov pressure over the years I think Rusbridger is pretty well aware of what gov is technically able to do, but also of its desire to keep some sort of credibility in regard to the role of the media in a supposedly democratic society - and the pressure of the right-wing media for the gov not to interfere. I think Rusbridger is to be applauded for the stand he's taken, not arrogantly put down because he hasn't discussed all the possible future scenarios - while you don't take into consideration the government's reluctanace to use all the means techinically available, for political reasons, as their political credibility would be radically undermined if they were seen to be acting like China in blocking access to journalism.  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 08:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
Yeah, yeah
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.
Deal?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 02:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
No deal :-) He was of course quite justified in his "feeling" that this was a "peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age." THAT act WAS pointless in a digital age. He says nothing about the gov's technically POSSIBLE further actions, such as trying to block reporting from the US  - which would be politically damaging to it for the reasons I gave.  

Cf.:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52805576#52805576

especially about 4 minutes in - and the tone is far from "bragging".

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
What will the Guardian do when the government escalates its goon-delivered demands for prior restraint? Also comply while reassuring themselves that compliance with increasing censorship is pointless?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 07:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 4)

We'll have to see won't we - but Rusbridger has clearly decided to openly fight back, to reveal, on the Guardian site, BBC radio 4 and on US TV, what pressures have already been put on them, and to explain, quite reasonably, how the tactical decision to comply with that pointless act only makes the gov look foolish. Meanwhile they are able to go on publishing about the issue, as they did today and they are teaming up with the NYT to ensure their stuff gets out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/23/guardian_nyt_partnership_on_gchq_disclosures/

Meanwhile you continue to try to find fault instead of welcoming their continuing efforts to bring this stuff to the public's attention - the majority sympathetic to Snowden - and hence to those supporting him.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
I didn't know this was all about me, Ted.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 03:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
- the paranoid said. As long as you persist in your errors it will be about why you are wrong :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (4.00 / 3)
"No, he shouldn't have demanded a court order first, the point was to avoid the involvement of legal action as far as possible"

But I think he should have demeaned a court order should have indeed pursued legal action. And that is not a "nasty little put down" but a quite fundamental question.

by IM on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 04:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bizarre autocorrect (none / 1)
should have demeaned a court order

Blogging from your phone, eh?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 04:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre autocorrect (4.00 / 8)
Demanded first, demeaned later.

"Blogging from your phone, eh?"

I don't belong to the spoiled youth of today who needs mechanical help to mess up.

by IM on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 04:40:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre autocorrect (none / 0)
LOL

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 05:22:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)

The nasty little put-down was the use of "bragging".

He shouldn't have demanded a court order for the reason I gave - which you just ignore - mere assertion is not very convincing.  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
This
it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age
deserved the putdown, in my opinion. Can we agree to disagree?

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 06:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)

Clearly we disagree, but that's because you're wrong :-) - as I've already pointed out, he's quite right about the pointlessness - in the digital age - of THAT particular act of destruction.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 08:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
He should have demanded a court order so that he doesn't create a precedent. That is important and I am not sure that your worries about potential problems with publication during the trial are well founded.
by IM on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 03:21:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)

They are not MY "worries"they are the views of a very experienced British editor - who knows rather more about the press and British law than you.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 1)
appeal to authority?

First term mistake.

by IM on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:35:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
Misunderstanding when appeal to authority is a fallacy and when it's not ?

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

As I said, they are the views of a very experienced British editor, who constantly has to deal with issues of the relations of the press and the British legal system - and hence is a "legitimate authority" on the subject.

IM must try harder in the second term to avoid obvious blunders :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sat Aug 24th, 2013 at 08:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)
If Rusbridger doesn't like prior restraint, though. He might want to look for employment as a newspaper editor in another jurisdiction.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Bizarre extra (none / 0)

Fortunately there are people like Rusbridger around who don't look for an easier place to work, but who work to oppose things they dislike and to try to improve the nature of the jurisdiction.

Others seem to like to carp even about those who do this.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 08:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So Canning and Greenwald Don't See Eye-to-Eye (4.00 / 2)
.
I posted a new diary @Booman because the discussion continues off-topic about Greenwald instead of the NSA rogue spy network. Booman got some input from Paul Canning who posted there recently.

BooMan's fp story linked to an article by Paul Canning a writer/blogger/activist from London, UK. Canning has harsh criticism for Greenwald's pro-Iraq War stance. As an activist and voice for the Iraq LGBT community, that may have caused some concern. That Glenn Greenwald and Paul Canning are not on the same page can be seen here and here.

Preferably read my earlier diary about the issues - Bloggers pro-Obama and anti-Greenwald - A Distraction on Issue. The vociferous attack on Glenn Greenwald and his work seems quite outrageous. Greenwald was known for his criticism of the Bush administration on the Human Rights issues. The last three years he has been critical of the Obama administration on the same issues, did the universe change? Canning has been critical of Ms Clinton handling the LGBT issue in Iraq after warnings of pogroms.

Do read recent comments - How 2 GCHQ members dropped by at the Guardian's office and smashed computers to bits.

Nevertheless, here about the non-issue everyone is talking about in the US.

I just posted my new diary - So Canning and Greenwald Don't See Eye-to-Eye.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:04:55 AM EST
Re: So Canning and Greenwald Don't See Eye-to-Eye (4.00 / 3)
I know Booman can act as an apologist for the Obama regime betimes, but I have been really disappointed in how he has sought to reduce serious civil liberties issues to a discussion of Greenwald's personality.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 01:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: So Canning and Greenwald Don't See Eye-to-Eye (none / 0)
I am surprised Greenwald hasn't been attacked for being gay.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: So Canning and Greenwald Don't See Eye-to-Eye (none / 1)
The disappointing thing is that many of the attacks are from the "left", so attacking his sexual orientation is not an option.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 02:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That might be selection bias. (4.00 / 2)
It might be going on at sites that you don't frequent. I would not be surprised if there are RWNjob sites with furious arguments whether he is part of the gay UN conspiracy to undermine the government.

As already noted, the so-called "liberal" allies of the administration attacking GG can't do it on the basis of his being gay.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 07:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Groklaw Legal Site Shuts Down (4.00 / 2)
.
Groklaw legal site shuts over fears of NSA email snooping

(Guardian) - The award-winning legal analysis site Groklaw is shutting because its founder says that "there is no way" to continue to run it without using secure email - and that the threat of NSA spying means that could be compromised.

"There is now no shield from forced exposure," writes the site's founder, Pamela Jones, an American paralegal who has run the site from its start in 2003, in a farewell message on the site.

Jones cites the revelations that the US National Security Agency (NSA) can capture any email, and can store encrypted email for up to five years, as having prompted her decision to shutter the site: "the simple truth is, no matter how good the motives might be for collecting and screening everything we say to one another, and no matter how "clean" we all are ourselves from the standpont of the screeners, I don't know how to function in such an atmosphere. I don't know how to do Groklaw like this," she writes.

The abrupt decision - which Jones had not hinted at in any previous article since the revelations about the extent of the NSA's surveillance first came out in June - shocked people.

The Surveillance State Is Corrosive: The Case of Pamela Jones



Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:32:41 AM EST
Toobin, CNN's Shill for the Establishment/NSA (none / 0)
.
Legal expert Jeffrey Toobin Compares Glenn Greenwald's Partner to a 'Drug Mule'

(The Atlantic Wire) - The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin went on CNN to continue his defense of the NSA and the White House against Edward Snowden's leaks and the journalists who report on them. He responded to David Miranda's 9-hour detention in the UK under a controversial terrorism law by comparing Glenn Greenwald's partner to a drug mule.

    "Let's be clear about what Mr. Miranda's role was here. I don't want to be unkind, but he was a mule. He was given something -- he didn't know what it was -- for one person to pass to another at the other end of an airport. Our prisons are full of drug mules."

Part of my new diary @BooMan - Toobin, CNN's Shill for the Establishment/NSA.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Wed Aug 21st, 2013 at 04:58:16 AM EST
Important Victory for David Miranda (none / 1)
.
The court ruling and injunction is an important legal victory for David Miranda. As I interpret the ruling, the seizure of the data was illegal as it cannot be used in any criminal procedure. The Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is meant to determine whether a person entering the UK is a terrorist. Special powers are granted, however the police knew ahead of time they would stop and search Miranda, so the whole procedure by the Met police was illegal. Minister Theresa May, Downing Street 10 and Washington DC got the "heads-up" this procedure would be started. It is similar in the US if someone isn't read his Miranda rights, the interrogation and searches without a warrant are illegal and useless for evidence in a criminal procedure. IMO The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald cannot claim Miranda was on a journalistic activity. One cannot become a "journalist" by association. You either are or are not employed by The Guardian News & Media in New York. There is no in between grey area. The Met Police and the UK were at fault and the electronic material will be returned.

David Miranda wins partial court victory over data seized by police

(The Guardian) - David Miranda has been granted a limited injunction at the high court to stop the government and police "inspecting, copying or sharing" data seized from him during his detention at Heathrow airport - but examination by the police for national security purposes is allowed.

Miranda had taken the government to court to try and get the data returned, but judges ruled that the police would be able to make limited use of what had been taken during his nine-hour detention on Sunday.

The court ruled the authorities must not inspect the data nor distribute it domestically or to any foreign government or agency unless it is for the purpose of ensuring the protection national security or for investigating whether Miranda is himself involved in the commission, instigation or preparation of an act of terrorism.

But the ruling also meant that data cannot be used for the purposes of criminal investigation - although the court had previously heard that the Met had launched a criminal investigation after analysing the seized data.

A Guardian News & Media spokesperson said: "We welcome this partial victory but have grave concerns that today's judgment allows police to examine without any legal oversight journalistic material seized from David Miranda. It remains our position that David Miranda was involved in legitimate journalistic activity."

Repeal Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000



Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 03:35:16 PM EST
Re: Important Victory for David Miranda (none / 1)
So, they can't look at the data, nor can they give it to the Americans
unless it is for the purpose of ensuring the protection national security or for investigating whether Miranda is himself involved in the commission, instigation or preparation of an act of terrorism.

i.e. unless they feel like it.

Hollow victory which doesn't change anything, except the criminal proceedings bit (against who, anyway?)

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Important Victory for David Miranda (none / 1)
.
No surprise, it's their data ... NSA and GCHQ. The intelligence community now is aware how devastating the trove of data is. Perhaps the British should be nice to the journalists of The Guardian. Getting upset like Cameron and the emotions in the Oval Room doesn't make the nightmare go away. Perhaps Obama should consult his evil twin Cass Sustein?

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 at 04:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Important Victory for David Miranda (4.00 / 4)
The intelligence community now is aware how devastating the trove of data is.

Yes, that's the important takeaway from the whole Miranda business. The British have revealed that what they seized included top secret GCHQ reports, among other things.

This means that Poitras and Greenwald no longer have complete control of the calendar. The NSA and Obama will be working on damage control strategies. Perhaps that's no bad thing : they have the opportunity for a proper reform which could render the massive secret state somewhat more transparent and accountable.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 05:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, the mind games begin! (4.00 / 7)
Exclusive: UK's secret Mid-East internet surveillance base is revealed in Edward Snowden leaks - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, The Independent has learnt.

The station is able to tap into and extract data from the underwater fibre-optic cables passing through the region.

The information is then processed for intelligence and passed to GCHQ in Cheltenham and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. The Government claims the station is a key element in the West's "war on terror" and provides a vital "early warning" system for potential attacks around the world.

The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. The Guardian newspaper's reporting on these documents in recent months has sparked a dispute with the Government, with GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives containing the data

BUT

Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided.

That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:

I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.

"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."

In other words: right as there is a major scandal over the UK's abusive and lawless exploitation of its Terrorism Act - with public opinion against the use of the Terrorism law to detain David Miranda - and right as the UK government is trying to tell a court that there are serious dangers to the public safety from these documents, there suddenly appears exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before. That is why Snowden is making clear: despite the Independent's attempt to make it appears that it is so, he is not their source for that disclosure. Who, then, is?

The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.

... and the Independent appears to be collaborating.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
NSA Digital Files Carried From UK to New York (none / 1)
.
New York Times And Guardian Will Publish More Snowden Revelations by Ben Smith

(BuzzFeed) - Now the Times or an agent for the paper, too, appears to have carried digital files from the United Kingdom across international lines into the United States. Discussions of how to partner on the documents were carried out in person between top Guardian editors and Times executive editor Jill Abramson, all of whom declined to comment on the movement of documents. But it appears likely that someone at one of the two papers physically carried a drive with Snowden's GCHQ leaks from London to New York or Washington -- exactly what Miranda was stopped at Heathrow for doing.



Amnesia and Gaza Genocide
by Oui on Fri Aug 23rd, 2013 at 03:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuremberg Principle and War Crimes (none / 0)
.
From your linked article ...

The long toes of Jeffrey Toobin:

    "'Nuremberg', as you surely know, means one thing in this country: Nazis. You attempt the subtle distinction that the Nuremberg principle was only established after World War II."

The precedent set under Nuremberg Principle IV which states:

    "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Principle IV came about before the end of World War II, when the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.    -source:

As a CNN legal expert, mr. Toobin you failed. The principle of conscience was established at Nuremberg, that's why it's stated as a precedent set in 1945. That's why the US Armed Forces have failed from My Lai through Abu Ghraib/Bagram/Haditha/Fallujah and that particular video released through Wikileaks by Manning. The world would be a better place without the bs of a Bob Cesca and Jeffrey Toobin. I too believe in today's world invocating comparisons to Hitler, Nazis or Holocaust are grotesque and misplaced. Many bloggers have argumented the US as we knew it, doesn't exist anymore. Yes, our government and it's leadership do show fascist tendencies, part of a global move towards awareness own identity and nationalism.

So Snowden did not call anyone a Nazi mr. Toobin, although if I were in your shoes I would feel a bit uncomfortable - my diary - Toobin, CNN's Shill for the Establishment/NSA.

Link to YouTube video from Wikileaks - Collateral Murder.

Manning defense wins round on WikiLeaks helicopter video - June 27, 2013

FORT MEADE, MD. -- Lawyers for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning can offer evidence contradicting the government's assertion that he revealed classified information in a leaked battlefield video from Iraq. The prosecutors presented an assessment from a Pentagon official that the video revealed military tactics, techniques and procedures.

PS If I were you Martin, I would strongly object being mentioned in the same sentence with Bob Cesca and in an article about Jeffrey Toobin. Not good for your karma.

Cross-posted from BooMan's most recent fp story - Is This What It Has Come To?.

Is the progressive left eating one another on this issue, is Greenwald a reliable journalist and the implications for the Obama presidency.

Amnesia and Gaza Genocide

by Oui on Sun Aug 25th, 2013 at 05:02:39 AM EST
Bloggers pro-Obama and anti-Greenwald - A Distraction on Issue | 90 comments (87 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]