F*cking digusting.

Western governments are more dangerous to their people's liberties than the enemies they claim to protect them from.

Quote: Now, though, we have more evidence that British authorities are leaning heavily on The Guardian as well as Greenwald in an effort to shut off the flow of revelations that are almost as embarrassing to the U.K.'s GCHQ as to America's NSA. In fact, British spooks have actually been over to that newspaper's office to smash things. I kid you not.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/19/britis...-nice-litt

Link to RT Op-Ed

Excerpt:

... He was detained for the maximum period allowed under the draconian terms of Schedule 7 of the UK's Terrorism Act (2000). His apparent "crime"? To be the partner of campaigning journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden whistleblowing stories. Miranda's detention has caused outrage, rightly, around the world. Diplomatic representations have been made by the Brazilian government to the British, UK MPs are asking questions, and The Guardian newspaper (which is the primary publisher of Greenwald's stories), has sent in the lawyers. This episode is troubling on so many levels, it is difficult to know where to begin. Firstly, the Terrorism Act (2000) is designed to investigate…terrorism - at least, so you would think.

However it is all too easy for mission creep to set in, as I have been saying for years. The definition of terrorism has expanded to cover activists, placard wavers, and protesters as well as, now apparently, the partners of journalists. The old understanding of due legal process is merely yet another quaint, British artifact like the Magna Carta and habeas corpus...

Get a grip, will ya. Not a little hyperbole in this slanted link.

So here's the background. British intelligence services (correctly?) inferred that Greenwald was using his partner's computer to transport materials from the USA's NSA files. So Greenwald and his sweetie traveled separately and they (incorrectly) inferred that the partner wouldn't be given the scrutiny that Greenwald would. So British security decided to have a look at what illegally obtained and compromising information was on the laptop.

Be more careful when booking your Flights from now on. Don't change planes in a country if you have it's classified info on your hard drive.

(08-20-2013 07:43 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Get a grip, will ya. Not a little hyperbole in this slanted link.

So here's the background. British intelligence services (correctly?) inferred that Greenwald was using his partner's computer to transport materials from the USA's NSA files. So Greenwald and his sweetie traveled separately and they (incorrectly) inferred that the partner wouldn't be given the scrutiny that Greenwald would. So British security decided to have a look at what illegally obtained and compromising information was on the laptop.

There is no evidence that Miranda had any nsa documents in his possession. The intelligence service didn't stop greenwald, only his partner. They did not arrest or charge Miranda as he committed no crime. One u.s. official even admitted it was for intimidation. I don't understand why so many are okay with the government violating privacy and seizure rights. And okay with harassing the whistle blowers and journalists. Why give the government a blank check to terrorize its own citizens in the name of promoting security?

So stuff we see on TV, that never happens, actually does happen. Scary

(08-20-2013 12:52 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:43 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Get a grip, will ya. Not a little hyperbole in this slanted link.

So here's the background. British intelligence services (correctly?) inferred that Greenwald was using his partner's computer to transport materials from the USA's NSA files. So Greenwald and his sweetie traveled separately and they (incorrectly) inferred that the partner wouldn't be given the scrutiny that Greenwald would. So British security decided to have a look at what illegally obtained and compromising information was on the laptop.

There is no evidence that Miranda had any nsa documents in his possession. The intelligence service didn't stop greenwald, only his partner. They did not arrest or charge Miranda as he committed no crime. One u.s. official even admitted it was for intimidation. I don't understand why so many are okay with the government violating privacy and seizure rights. And okay with harassing the whistle blowers and journalists. Why give the government a blank check to terrorize its own citizens in the name of promoting security?

We don't know the genesis of the Brit's suspicions. They could have suspected that Greenwald's partner was in possession of NSA information and acted accordingly. Furthermore I don't think they Brits "terrorized" anyone. We are at war with people who want to destroy our society, our civilization. We must do what is necessary to protect ourselves from these terrorists, and if the NSA gathers data to assist this worthy goal, then I support their efforts.

On the other hand, if this, or any future, administration were to use the data to spy on their domestic political opponents, of course I don't support this effort. Perhaps there is reason to suspect that this could happen but right now, I believe that we must do what is necessary to protect our citizens from death.

And we may never know how many terrorist attacks were foiled because of the NSA's work.

If you are open sufficiently open minded, you may want to read an alternative view on this, but somehow I doubt that is what you possess:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...on_LEADTop