42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
JPB
 
  3  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 01:40 pm
@RABEL222,
If the USG was given a "heads up" about the impending detention of David Miranda and didn't offer an opinion on said notification/plan then they didn't. I find that hard to believe. The Brits may well have been acting solely independently. If so, why would they give the US a "heads up" and then hang up without waiting for a response? If the response of the USG was anything other than, "I don't think that's a wise move" then I think we share some of the blame for what, I believe, was a really, really dumb thing to do.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 01:53 pm
@JPB,
You havent answered my question. Which is it? Mind our own business or stick our nose where it dosent belong.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 01:59 pm
@JPB,
I doubt the NSA was kept in the dark for long. They do give millions to GCHQ after all.

Obviously there's not been enough time for an inquiry, but the pundits are saying that they wouldn't go through all this just to intimidate someone's boyfriend, that he was in possession of documents himself.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:12 pm
@izzythepush,
All of these subsequent screwup occur, because the US government didn't control the growing problems from the very beginning.

Incompetence!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  3  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:16 pm
@RABEL222,
How does it not belong on the other end of a ringing phone?

The phone rang, someone answered it and was told about an impeding action. That made it our business, as in, we were supposedly brought into it by the Brits. Once brought into it, imo, we should have suggested the idea that this would blow up into something much bigger than sending a message to GG or being able to confiscate a heavily encrypted flash drive/hard disc.

From Glenn Greenwald via Forbes:
“We both now typically and automatically encrypt all documents and work we carry – not just for the NSA stories,” says Greenwald via email. “So everything he had – for his personal use and everything else – was heavily encrypted, and I’m not worried at all that they can break that.”

Greenwald says Miranda got a document itemizing what was taken from him and was told the items are typically returned within seven days. Hopefully they’ll be returned sans spyware.
BillRM
 
  2  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:34 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Hopefully they’ll be returned sans spyware


If I was them unless they can get a top of the line expert to look at the computer I would junk it without ever powering it up.

First hardware could be added to the laptop that would be hard to detected and then if it the kind of encryption I think it is a very small boot sector program could be added to record the password and send it by way of the internet to Virginia or the UK GCHQ.

I have the weight of my netbooks recorded down to the one hundred of an ounce so I might be able to detected added hardware and I know how to overwrite the boot sector but still I think in their place I would junk the netbook seized and just purchase another one restoring my system from the complete backup I do just before leaving on a trip.

Footnote I will not go into details but usb memory sticks can be even more dangerous to used then the laptop after being return to them.

They would be wise to either junk everything or turn it over to experts to see if the UK can be found to had play games with the hardware.

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:42 pm
@JPB,
The decision to detain Miranda was a decision made by the British government on their own; according to WH deputy press secretary.

Quote:
"This is a decision that they made on their own and not at the request of the United States," White House principal deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said.


White House: U.S. had no role in detention of Greenwald's partner

It is certainly possible the US deliberately made no response to the heads up. I suppose it can be argued that then makes them involved.




BillRM
 
  3  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:44 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
The decision to detain Miranda was a decision made by the British government on their own; according to WH deputy press secretary.


An we should give such statements any credit because of what?
revelette
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:49 pm
@BillRM,
Because we don't have any evidence is isn't true.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:51 pm
Quote:
David Miranda: 'They said I would be put in jail if I didn't cooperate'
Partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald gives his first interview on nine-hour interrogation at Heathrow airport

David Miranda, the partner of the Guardian journalist who broke stories of mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency, has accused Britain of a "total abuse of power" for interrogating him for almost nine hours at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act.

In his first interview since returning to his home in Rio de Janeiro early on Monday, Miranda said the authorities in the UK had pandered to the US in trying to intimidate him and force him to reveal the passwords to his computer and mobile phone.

"They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate," said Miranda. "They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the UK … It was exhausting and frustrating, but I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong."

Miranda – a Brazilian national who lives with Greenwald in Rio – was held for the maximum time permitted under schedule seven of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows officers to stop, search and question individuals at airports, ports and border areas.

During that time, he said, he was not allowed to call his partner, who is a qualified lawyer in the US, nor was he given an interpreter, despite being promised one because he felt uncomfortable speaking in a second language.

"I was in a different country with different laws, in a room with seven agents coming and going who kept asking me questions. I thought anything could happen. I thought I might be detained for a very long time," he said.

He was on his way back from Berlin, where he was ferrying materials between Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on stories related to the NSA files released by US whistle-blower Edward Snowden.

Miranda was seized almost as soon as his British Airways flight touched down on Sunday morning. "There was an announcement on the plane that everyone had to show their passports. The minute I stepped out of the plane they took me away to a small room with four chairs and a machine for taking fingerprints," he recalled.

His carry-on bags were searched and, he says, police confiscated a computer, two pen drives, an external hard drive and several other electronic items, including a games console, as well two newly bought watches and phones that were packaged and boxed in his stowed luggage.

"They got me to tell them the passwords for my computer and mobile phone," Miranda said. "They said I was obliged to answer all their questions and used the words 'prison' and 'station' all the time."

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

Miranda was told he was being detained under the Terrorism Act. He was never accused of being a terrorist or being associated with terrorists, but he was told that if – after nine hours – his interrogators did not think he was being co-operative, then he could be taken to a police station and put in jail.

"This law shouldn't be given to police officers. They use it to get access to documents or people that they cannot get the legal way through courts or judges," said Miranda. "It's a total abuse of power."

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities. The questions, he said, were relentless – about Greenwald, Snowden, Poitras and a host of other apparently random subjects.

"They even asked me about the protests in Brazil, why people were unhappy and who I knew in the government," said Miranda.

He got his first drink – from a Coke machine in the corridor – after eight hours and was eventually released almost an hour later. Police records show he had been held from 08.05 to 17.00.

Unable immediately to find a flight for him back to Rio, Miranda says the Heathrow police then escorted him to passport control so he could enter Britain and wait there.

"It was ridiculous," he said. "First they treat me like a terrorist suspect. Then they are ready to release me in the UK."

Although he believes the British authorities were doing the bidding of the US, Miranda says his view of the UK has completely changed as a result of the experience.

"I have friends in the UK and liked to visit, but you can't go to a country where they have laws that allow the abuse of liberty for nothing," he said.

The White House on Monday insisted that it was not involved in the decision to detain Miranda, though a spokesman said US officials had been given a "heads up" by British officials beforehand.

The Brazilian government has expressed grave concern about the "unjustified" detention.

Speaking by phone from the couple's home in the Tijuca forest, Miranda said it felt "awesome" to be back. "It's really good to be here. I felt the weight lift off my shoulders as soon I got back. Brazil feels very secure, very safe," he said. "I knew my country would protect me, and I believe in my husband and knew that he would do anything to help me."
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:56 pm
"HEAT"...."KITCHEN."
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:57 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Because we don't have any evidence is isn't true.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending, but this sounds as if you haven't checked much into the candor of the average White-House press secretary. Have you? (Hint: Have you ever heard the phrase "as honest as a White-House spokesman"? Have you ever wondered why not?)
BillRM
 
  3  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:57 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
"They got me to tell them the passwords for my computer and mobile phone,"


Too bad now the question come up did he have the passwords for the memory sticks or not he was carrying.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:59 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
Because we don't have any evidence is isn't true.


We also have no good reason to think that they would tell the truth either in fact just the reverse.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:01 pm
@Thomas,
Yes it does sound condescending because it is needlessly condescending. My point is that so far there is no proof that the British police detained Miranda at the request of the US and until there is such proof all claims to contrary are baseless.
Thomas
 
  4  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:08 pm
@revelette,
Bill did not claim that the Brits detained Miranda at the request of the US. He merely said he doesn't believe the White-House spokesman's statement that they didn't. That was a perfectly reasonable claim of Bill's. Maybe the US made the request; maybe it didn't. Either way, we shouldn't take a professional spinmaster's word for it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:10 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

Yes it does sound condescending because it is needlessly condescending. My point is that so far there is no proof that the British police detained Miranda at the request of the US and until there is such proof all claims to contrary are baseless.


You are trying to reason with people who hate America and Americans...and who think it genius to second-guess every government move.

You are never going to penetrate the concrete, Revelette. But I commend you for keeping at it.

BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:13 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
here is no proof that the British police detained Miranda at the request of the US


Sorry it is likely that the US was as involved in fact as involved as can be, as the last time the UK acted without our knowledge and permissions was when they took part in the seizing of the Suez Canal during the Eisenhower administration.

Our junior partner since then have a good record of following our lead and not getting off the leash.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:13 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

The decision to detain Miranda was a decision made by the British government on their own; according to WH deputy press secretary.


Government's putting it too high, cabinet ministers wouldn't have known until after the event. Some senior MI5 operative made the call, he would have told his opposite number in the CIA.

The story that's being spun, is that they had probable cause to believe documents that threatened national security were being transported. It took nine hours to hold him because of the sheer volume of documents. I think they'll try to brazen it out.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  6  
Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

You are trying to reason with people who hate America and Americans...and who think it genius to second-guess every government move.


She is? Who, for instance? Mostly she's been talking with me, Bill, Walter and Thomas. On what basis do you think any of us hate America and Americans? Ok, never mind.... this is headed down that slippery slope of turning a discussion into one that discusses the posters over the topic at hand. Nice strawman.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 94
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.34 seconds on 11/29/2024 at 01:35:03