Glenn Greenwald speaks out

[seemslikeadream]

well then I guess that whole NSA thingy is a bunch of bullshit

How I Joined Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman as an Official, Self-Hating Jew
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily

By David Harris-Gershon (@David_EHG)

Today, I learned that – due to my writing for Daily Kos and Tikkun Magazine – I have been officially declared a self-hating Jew, joiningthe likes of Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman on a list I’m only too proud to embrace.

How did this happen?

It’s quite simple and rather mundane. See, as an American progressive, I have long held that one of the most important geopolitical issues of our time is Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories, and the U.S. government’s role in enabling this military occupation. I have long held that America’s unwillingness to seriously intervene in this asymmetric conflict, to use its inordinate leverage (namely: $3 billion in annual funding) to compel Israelis to embrace a two-state settlement is a moral and political embarrassment.

As a Jewish progressive, I have long held that this occupation and domination of another people is the single greatest moral failing of my generation. For the human rights abuses Israel’s sustained occupation has wrought – civilians being subjected to undemocratic, military rule, indefinite detentions, home demolitions, restrictions on basic freedoms, and worse – make me shudder with shame and sadness.

And for harboring such political perspectives, I have been called an anti-Semite by conservatives and progressives alike, a term that has become so diluted by misuse that all it really amounts to anymore is a glorified way of saying I disagree with you.

And now, I have joined Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman (among many others) on an ‘official’ list of self-hating Jews curated by a right-wing, extremist organization that – tragically – mirrors the views of too many middle-of-the-road Americans.

Here is part of Glenn Greenwald’s entry, earned for honest political critiques of American foreign policy in the region:

He uses classically anti-Semitic narratives regarding Jewish power and dual loyalty – while also warning of the corrosive effects of Jewish money.

And here is a section of Amy Goodman’s entry, earned for some of the smartest, in-depth reporting on Israel and Palestine:

Pro-Palestinian writer and host on Pacifica Radio and one of many leftist radical Jews who populate the airwaves on Pacifica Radio. The media watchdog group CAMERA condemned her Pacifica Radio for “repeatedly providing a forum for racists, anti-Semites and other critics of Israel.” She is also a ubiquitous speaker at anti-U.S. and anti-Israel rallies.

And here is a portion of my entry, or rather snippets of my writing which earned my place on this self-hating list:

Palestinians are controlled in an apartheid state without any political rights … [Israeli leaders are still stricken by] psychological demons that stretch back to the Holocaust, demons which magnify Jewish victimhood such that brutalizing another people becomes a justifiable, even necessary position.

Now, that fact that this self-hating list exists, or that it’s run by an extremist organization, should be neither surprising nor noteworthy. What is noteworthy, however, is the fact that too many progressive Americans – and Americans in general – view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as simply a match between two peoples who hate each other, a match that they should just figure out on their own (or destroy each other trying).

How could such an asymmetrical conflict – with one of the most sophisticated armies in the world pitted against a stateless, powerless people – be viewed and dismissed by so many in America as a dumb conflict between two ideologically-bent peoples?

Lists like the one I’ve been included on and the principles that underlie it – casting Palestinians as a brutal, murderous lot – is much to blame.

In truth, both peoples are full of those who simply want to enjoy the right to watch a proper soccer match in peace while having access to a good cell plan.

But with so many self-hating Jews abounding, it’s hard to see such a reality.

[justdrew]

he can have a doberman-like quality at times. but really the take on this spying is much more indepth than worrying about Greenwald. It starts here... Puts things in a much more comprehensive historical perspective...

http://spitfirelist.com/news/planet-of-the-apps-on-the-subject-of-those-shocking-disclosures-about-nsagchq-electronic-surveillance-y-a-w-n/

and he coined "Planet of the Apps"

[seemslikeadream]

he can have a doberman-like quality at times. but really the take on this spying is much more indepth than worrying about Greenwald. It starts here... Puts things in a much more comprehensive historical perspective...

http://spitfirelist.com/news/planet-of-the-apps-on-the-subject-of-those-shocking-disclosures-about-nsagchq-electronic-surveillance-y-a-w-n/

and he coined "Planet of the Apps"

great Emory stuff for sure but they are after Greenwald big time..one would think he was best buds with that guy AD is always talking about

Glenn Greenwald’s Sick Brew of NSA Leaks and Anti-Israel Hysteria
Blogger’s bizarre ideology sees America and Israel in active cahoots to destroy the freedoms of the entire world

......
A subtler variation of Greenwald’s cartoonish approach is on display in the work of James Bamford. Heralded as our finest investigative journalist covering the NSA—he is the author of three books about the agency—Bamford has spent the last five years repeating his favorite cautionary tale, the one about how America’s spymasters are secretly powered by Israeli cunning. Last year, for example, Bamford wrote a story in Wired titled “Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA,” revealing the role two Israeli technology firms play in making the agency’s surveillance infrastructure possible.

“In a rare and candid admission to Forbes,” Bamford wrote, “Retired Brig. Gen. Hanan Gefen, a former commander of the highly secret Unit 8200, Israel’s NSA, noted his former organization’s influence on Comverse, which owns Verint, as well as other Israeli companies that dominate the U.S. eavesdropping and surveillance market.”

It sounds like pretty damning stuff, unless one realizes two key facts. The first is that Bamford’s “rare and candid admission”—a term crucial to creating an aura of mystery and intrigue around what would have otherwise been just another one of the myriad commercial transactions that occur daily in a globalized economy—was anything but: The Israeli army’s contribution to that country’s technology scene in general, and Unit 8200’s involvement in particular, is widely discussed, including by members of the unit itself, and it formed much of the thesis of Start-Up Nation, the 2009 best-seller by Dan Senor and Saul Singer.

But even those forest-dwellers who may be honestly surprised to learn that Western armies develop and use advanced technologies—such as, to name but one prominent example, the Internet, which owes its existence to the U.S. Department of Defense—would surely not be surprised to learn that nations also sell each other stuff. Last month, for example, a report noted that the U.S. Army will pay $77 million to replace old M4 rifles with shiny, new M4A1s. The latter are produced by FN Herstal, a subsidiary of the Herstal Group, a corporation that is entirely owned by the Walloon Region of Belgium, which is to say, by a foreign government. But don’t expect Bamford et al., to evoke the same ominous hum about the infiltration of the Walloons; foreign military contracts, apparently, are only a terrifying evil that threatens to undermine American democracy when the foreign companies are Israeli.

It would be crass, and largely inaccurate, to chalk up Bamford’s and Greenwald’s obsessive focus on Israel’s supposed role in evil global conspiracies to simple anti-Semitism. Instead, the ideology that drives their tendency to see the NSA and Israel as two heads of the same Satanic beast is more complex and ideologically-driven—an attack on the doctrines of exceptionalism that fueled the rise of both America and Israel. Beginning in the 1960s, this idea that America and Israel were virtuous nations apart began to drive a certain segment of the global left nuts, and so they set off on a search for new heroes. “The native,” Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in the introduction to Frantz Fanon’s explosive The Wretched of the Earth, “has only one choice, between servitude or sovereignty. … Violence, like Achilles’ lance, can heal the wounds that it has inflicted.” Men of the left saw no problem with lending their reputations to terrorist organizations with nationalist aspirations that shared nothing of their humanistic and universalist ideologies, as long as these groups also hated America and Israel. In order for history to progress as it should, the New Chosen People had to displace the old, even if it meant a bizarre redrawing of political coalitions. We see remnants of this ideology still, in the philosopher Judith Butler’s argument that Hamas and Hezbollah are somehow part of the global left, or in the recent movements against “homonationalism,” dedicated to condemning gay Israelis for being proud of their nation’s generally progressive policies regarding gay rights.

.....

[justdrew]

sure, I don't have any problem with greenwald per-se, if anything he may be being used. Some good might come of this yet, we'll see.

but consider, even if we massively banned the NSA, shut the whole thing down, Other Parties, like for instance private criminals or what have you, would still have access, if only by turning a member of one of the companies that operate these systems.

The only way to restore privacy would be "data destruction" laws BANNING things like log retention, banning any capture of packets, indeed, routers designed inherently to physically prevent any 'software' packet capture, and other things.

In other words, all the 'bad things' we can hypothetically fear the 'government' might decide to do, can also be done by Unknown Others. It may even be far more likely to be done by Others. Meanwhile these very surveillance data systems provide us with the Very Real Possibility of rendering shadow organizations visible, conspiracies... impossible, etc...

It's a tricky situation

[seemslikeadream]

couldn't that be going on right now with 20,000 working for Booze Allen with security clearances?

[justdrew]

couldn't that be going on right now with 20,000 working for Booze Allen with security clearances?

em hm. yep.

perhaps some of the dance spots where his girlfriend worked were frequented by organized crime linked persons. who knows what all went down.

of couse booze allen or whoever it was didn't hire Snowden, they hired Dell and Dell hire Snowden. and given the context of their "removal of 90% of their sys admins" the real hidden story here may be that the whole system was vulnerable to subversion and they didnt know who to trust. That would not be something they would want known. Snowden might even be covering for previous crimes, like having been convinced by any number of methods to provide information to some "criminal enterprise" - and he decided he was going to get busted, and figured this was his only way out. which could have been the expected end game all along, who knows?

[slimmouse]

It's a tricky situation

Which is of course how it will remain as long as these contractors remained endorsed by a state that basically represents them, and therefore turns a big blind eye to what are essentially, literally, crimes against humanity..

Its no real big deal I guess. The same thing happens with our food, our medicine, our banking structure, our military, our media, our education system, our "democracies", even our spirituality.

In fact, where in our lives does any of this madness actually stop?

[seemslikeadream]

Cameron Proves Greenwald Right
Aug 18 2013 @ 6:41pm

David Cameron Meets With The King Of Bahrain At Downing Street

Readers know I have been grappling for a while with the vexing question of the balance between the surveillance state and the threat of Jihadist terrorism. When the NSA leaks burst onto the scene, I was skeptical of many of the large claims made by civil libertarians and queasily sympathetic to a program that relied on meta-data alone, as long as it was transparent, had Congressional buy-in, did not accidentally expose innocent civilians to grotesque privacy loss, and was watched by a strong FISA court.

Since then, I’ve watched the debate closely and almost all the checks I supported have been proven illusory. The spying is vastly more extensive than anyone fully comprehended before; the FISA court has been revealed as toothless and crippled; and many civilians have had their privacy accidentally violated over 3000 times. The president, in defending the indefensible, has damaged himself and his core reputation for honesty and candor. These cumulative revelations have exposed this program as, at a minimum, dangerous to core liberties and vulnerable to rank abuse. I’ve found myself moving further and further to Glenn’s position.

What has kept me from embracing it entirely has been the absence of any real proof than any deliberate abuse has taken place and arguments that it has helped prevent terror attacks. This may be too forgiving a standard. If a system is ripe for abuse, history tells us the only question is not if such abuse will occur, but when. So it is a strange and awful irony that the Coalition government in Britain has today clinched the case for Glenn.

A disclosure upfront: I have met David Miranda as part of a my friendship with Glenn Greenwald. The thought of his being detained by the British police for nine hours because his partner embarrassed the American government really sickens me at a gut level. I immediately think of my husband, Aaron, being detained in connection to work I have done – something that would horrify and frighten me. We should, of course, feel this empathy with people we have never known – but the realization is all the more gob-smacking when it comes so close to home. So of course my instinct is to see this exactly as Glenn has today.

But put that instinct aside for a moment. David was detained under an anti-terrorism law:

Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act allows the authorities to detain someone for up to nine hours for questioning and to conduct a search of personal items, often without a lawyer, to determine possible ties to terrorism. More than 97 percent of people stopped under the provision are questioned for under an hour, according to the British government.

David was detained for nine hours – the maximum time under the law, to the minute. He therefore falls into the 3 percent of interviewees particularly, one assumes, likely to be linked to terrorist organizations. My obvious question is: what could possibly lead the British security services to suspect David of such ties to terror groups?
I have seen nothing anywhere that could even connect his spouse to such nefarious contacts. Unless Glenn is some kind of super-al-Qaeda mole, he has none to my knowledge and to suspect him of any is so close to unreasonable it qualifies as absurd. The idea that David may fomenting terrorism is even more ludicrous.

And yet they held him for three hours before informing his spouse and another six hours thereafter. I can see no reason for those extra six hours (or for that matter the entire nine hours) than brute psychological intimidation of the press, by attacking their families.

More to the point, although David was released, his entire digital library was confiscated – including his laptop and phone. So any journalist passing through London’s Heathrow has now been warned: do not take any documents with you. Britain is now a police state when it comes to journalists, just like Russia is.

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?

Press releases
18 August 2013
UK: Detention of Guardian employee at Heathrow unlawful and unwarranted

A Guardian newspaper employee detained today while in transit at a London airport is clearly a victim of unwarranted revenge tactics, targeted for no more than who he is married to, Amnesty International said today.

David Michael Miranda is married to Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who analyzed and published information on documents disclosing sweeping, systematic and unlawful surveillance by the US government. These documents were released by Edward Snowden.

Miranda was detained while in transit in Heathrow and was held in detention for nearly nine hours – the point at which the government would have had to seek further authority to continue the detention.

“It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his husband has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance,” said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

“David’s detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty vindictive reasons.”

He was detained under Schedule 7 of the UK terrorism Act of 2000, an extremely broad law which has repeatedly been criticized for making the abuse of individuals possible because it is so vague. So far, calls to reform the law have not been heeded.

He was held for almost nine hours and many of his possessions were confiscated by the government.

“There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his husband, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analyzing the data released by Edward Snowden.”

"States cannot pass anti-terror acts and claim they are necessary to protect people from harm and then use them to retaliate against someone exercising his rights. By targeting Miranda and Greenwald, the government is also sending a message to other journalists that if they maintain their independence and report critically about governments, they too may be targeted."

Background:

Schedule 7 is the law that allows the police to detain anyone at the UK borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present. No lawyer is provided automatically.

It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions -- regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police.

According to the advice published by the Association of Chief Police Officers’, Schedule 7 should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.

A similarly over-broad and vague section of the Act which allowed stop and frisk without any grounds was held to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Section 44 - as it was known - violated Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights which protects privacy.

Retenção de nacional brasileiro em Londres

18/08/2013 -

O Governo brasileiro manifesta grave preocupação com o episódio ocorrido no dia de hoje em Londres, onde cidadão brasileiro foi retido e mantido incomunicável no aeroporto de Heathrow por período de 9 horas, em ação baseada na legislação britânica de combate ao terrorismo. Trata-se de medida injustificável por envolver indivíduo contra quem não pesam quaisquer acusações que possam legitimar o uso de referida legislação. O Governo brasileiro espera que incidentes como o registrado hoje com o cidadão brasileiro não se repitam.



*****

Brazilian citizen held in London

The Brazilian government expresses grave concern about the episode that happened today in London, where a Brazilian citizen was held without communication at Heathrow airport for 9 hours, in an action based in the British anti-terrorism legislation. This measure is without justification since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian Government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to the Brazilian citizen today do not repeat.

[slimmouse]

Thanks for the links slad. I think we saw a similar flagrant violation of the law right at the very begginning of the Jimmy Saville thread.

Keeping the crimes of the deep state elite and the ongoing global agenda at the fore is a duty of anyone duly informed of such.

[JackRiddler]

Drew, seriously?

We're going with the Bormann Fourth Reich Guy making the case that Greenwald isn't just a Republican plant (already dumb as rocks) but an out and out Nazi! Really?

Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)

Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political label to me. It's almost always a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance of their arguments. It's the classic ad hominem fallacy: you don't need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he's an X.

Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian".

These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/3 ... -and-more#

[8bitagent]

Greenwald is not a dupe, stooge or "secret right winger" mole. Shoot, if you had questions he'd probably send an immediate tweet or email. Dupes don't do that.

COULD he be intentionally fed limited hangouts "they" want out in the open? Sure. But I don't question Greenwald's integrity. Though, did he really defend Hale???

[justdrew]

the Hale thing was a mistake but that's just what I think. Otherwise I don't have any problem with him I guess. Emory's probably over-reacting.

[gnosticheresy_2]

sure, I don't have any problem with greenwald per-se, if anything he may be being used. Some good might come of this yet, we'll see.

but consider, even if we massively banned the NSA, shut the whole thing down, Other Parties, like for instance private criminals or what have you, would still have access, if only by turning a member of one of the companies that operate these systems.

The only way to restore privacy would be "data destruction" laws BANNING things like log retention, banning any capture of packets, indeed, routers designed inherently to physically prevent any 'software' packet capture, and other things.

Or you can forget about privacy and go completely in the other direction - total transparency or everyone has the right to know everyone else's business. So everyone has access to the data, everyone has access to the "who is a suspected terrorist" list, everyone has access to the "who is using the who is a suspected terrorist list". All information available to all. No secrets.

[seemslikeadream]

David Miranda detention: Labour demands review of anti-terror powers
Yvette Cooper's comments come after partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was held for nine hours at Heathrow

Rowena Mason, political correspondent
theguardian.com, Monday 19 August 2013 07.42 EDT

Labour has called for an urgent investigation into the use of anti-terror powers to detain David Miranda, the partner of a Guardian journalist who interviewed US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

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.

His detention has caused "considerable consternation" and the Home Office must explain how this can be justified as appropriate and proportionate, she said.

Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, who has written a series of stories for the Guardian revealing mass surveillance programmes by the NSA. He was returning to their home in Rio de Janeiro when he was stopped at Heathrow and officials confiscated electronics equipment, including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

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, 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.

"The police and security agencies rightly work hard to protect national security and prevent terrorism. But public confidence in security powers depends on them being used proportionately within the law, and also on having independent checks and balances in place to prevent misuse."

Her intervention comes after Brazil expressed "grave concern" about the detention of one of its citizens under anti-terror legislation. Its government said the detention of Miranda was without justification, as there are "no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation". The Home Office has declined to comment, arguing it is a matter for Scotland Yard.

However, Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, said he would write to police asking them to explain the "extraordinary" use of anti-terror powers against the partner of a journalist. "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," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"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. "What is extraordinary is they knew he was the partner [of Greenwald] and therefore it is clear not only people who are directly involved are being sought but also the partners of those involved," he said.

"Bearing in mind it is a new use of terrorism legislation to detain someone in these circumstances ... I'm certainly interested in knowing, so I will write to the police to ask for the justification of the use of terrorism legislation – they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. But if we are going to use the act in this way … then at least we need to know so everyone is prepared."

Scotland Yard has refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers that enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports. "At 08:05 on Sunday 18 August, a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was subsequently released at 17:00," it said in a brief statement.

Schedule 7, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, controversially allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals. Miranda was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual.

According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. It has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers.

Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy, said: "It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his partner has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance.

"David's detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty, vindictive reasons. There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analysing the data released by Edward Snowden."

Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden.

While in Berlin, Miranda visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. Miranda is not an employee of the Guardian. As Greenwald's partner, he often assists him in his work and the Guardian normally reimburses the expenses of someone aiding a reporter in such circumstances.

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.

"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport. We are urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities."

Labour MP Tom Watson said he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention. He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect.

"I think that we need to know if any ministers knew about this decision, and exactly who authorised it. The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way."

Those stopped under schedule 7 have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence. Last month, the government said it would reduce the maximum period of detention to six hours and promised a review of the operation on schedule 7, amid concerns it unfairly targets minority groups and gives individuals fewer legal protections than they would have if detained at a police station.

Is Glenn Greenwald's journalism now viewed as a 'terrorist' occupation?

David Miranda's detention shows that being the partner of the man who interviewed the NSA whistleblower is enough to see you treated like a terrorist
Simon Jenkins
theguardian.com, Monday 19 August 2013 04.48 EDT


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.

The hysteria of the "war on terror" is now corrupting every area of democratic government. It extends from the arbitrary selection of drone targets to the quasi-torture of suspects, the intrusion on personal data and the harassing of journalists' families. The disregard of statutory oversight – in Britain's case pathetically inadequate – is giving western governments many of the characteristics of the enemies they profess to oppose. How Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee.

The innocent have nothing to fear? They do if they embarrass America and happen to visit British soil. The only land of the free today in this matter is Brazil.

[seemslikeadream]

Glenn Greenwald on partner's detention: You'll 'regret' it
By CNN Staff
updated 10:05 AM EDT, Mon August 19, 2013
Watch this video



NEW: Greenwald says he'll focus efforts on the English spy system
David Miranda, 28, was reportedly held for nearly nine hours
Greenwald broke the story about secret surveillance programs in the United States

(CNN) -- Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about secret U.S. surveillance programs said the authorities who took his partner into custody at London's Heathrow Airport "are going to regret what they did."

"I am going to write my stories a lot more aggressively now," the Guardian reporter told Brazil's Globo TV on Monday in Rio de Janeiro.

"I am going to publish many more documents now. I am going to publish a lot about England, too, I have a lot of documents about the espionage system in England. Now my focus is going to be that as well."

Greenwald's partner, 28-year-old David Miranda, was held for nearly nine hours. He was reportedly passing through the airport on his way home to Brazil after leaving Berlin.

Miranda, also speaking to Globo TV in Rio, said agents were asking him questions "about my entire life."
Debate heats up over classified info
Report: NSA can monitor you online

"I was in a room, there were six different agents coming in and out and talking to me," he said. "They took my computer, video games, cell phone, everything."

The detention was reported by The Guardian. Before releasing him, authorities seized Miranda's laptop, cell phone, video game consoles and USB sticks, Greenwald wrote for The Guardian.

"This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism," he said.

"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."

A Metropolitan Police spokesman confirmed that a 28-year-old man was detained Sunday at Heathrow.

The spokesman said the man was held for close to nine hours under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Brazil's foreign ministry issued a statement Sunday expressing "grave concern" over the incident. Anger had erupted in Brazil when citizens learned of U.S. National Security Agency spying on Brazil.

"This measure is without justification since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to the Brazilian citizen today do not repeat."

According to The Guardian, nine hours is the maximum time allowed before authorities must either release or arrest a detained individual. The newspaper reported it paid for Miranda's flights.

While in Berlin, Miranda stayed with filmmaker Laura Poitras, who has worked "extensively" with Greenwald on his stories about the National Security Agency, the reporter wrote.

Miranda was returning to their home in Rio de Janeiro.

"If the UK and U.S. governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded," said Greenwald.

"If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further."

David Miranda Detention 'A Disgrace,' Says Leading Human Rights Lawyer

Reuters | Posted: 08/19/2013 10:29 am EDT

(Updates with lawyer's quotes, paragraphs 3-4)

By Estelle Shirbon

LONDON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - British authorities came under pressure on Monday to explain why anti-terrorism powers were used to detain for nine hours the partner of a journalist who has written articles about U.S. and British surveillance programmes based on leaks from Edward Snowden.

Brazilian David Miranda, the partner of American journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained on Sunday at London's Heathrow Airport where he was in transit on his way from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro. He was released without charge.

"The detention of David Miranda is a disgrace and reinforces the undoubted complicity of the UK in U.S. indiscriminate surveillance of law-abiding citizens," Michael Mansfield, one of Britain's leading human rights lawyers, told Reuters.

"The fact that Snowden, and now anyone remotely associated with him, are being harassed as potential spies and terrorists is sheer unadulterated state oppression," he wrote in an email.

Miranda was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to stop and question people travelling through ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in planning terrorist acts.

The opposition Labour Party urged the authorities to explain how they could justify using Schedule 7 to detain Miranda, arguing any suggestion that anti-terrorism powers had been misused could undermine public support for those powers.

The Home Office, or interior ministry, said the detention was an operational police matter. The police declined to provide any details beyond confirming the detention.

"Schedule 7 forms an essential part of the UK's security arrangements. It is for the police to decide when it is necessary and proportionate to use these powers," a Home Office spokesman said.

Keith Vaz, a Labour lawmaker who chairs parliament's powerful interior affairs committee, told the BBC he had written to the head of London's Metropolitan Police to ask for clarification of what he labelled an "extraordinary" case.


"INTIMIDATION"

Miranda was detained for the maximum nine hours allowed by the legislation, which is extremely rare.

According to Home Office statistics, fewer than three out of every 10,000 people passing through British borders are stopped under Schedule 7. Of those, more than 97 percent are examined for less than one hour, while 0.06 percent are held for six hours or more.

Brazil has said Miranda's treatment "has no justification".

Greenwald, who is based in Brazil and writes for Britain's Guardian newspaper, said the detention of his partner was a "despotic" attempt to intimidate him and others involved in reporting on British and U.S. surveillance programmes.

"They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," he wrote in a column in the Guardian, adding that Miranda was given no access to a lawyer.

"If the UK and U.S. governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively ... they are beyond deluded."

He has published a series of articles based on documents leaked by Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor who faces criminal charges in the United States but has been granted temporary asylum in Russia.

Schedule 7 has been under official review, with a public consultation published in July showing that 71 percent of respondents thought the detention time-limit of nine hours was excessive. The government plans to reduce it to six hours. (Additional reporting by Michael Holden and William James; Editing by Pravin Char)