I understand that appearance.

Post #379,536 by Another Scott 8/19/13 1:29:29 PM Reply	I understand that appearance. I don't agree, but so be it. This topic was thrashed out quite thoroughly at Balloon-Juice last night - http://www.balloon-j...reedom-thats-why/ 1) Greenwald released information about GCHQ spying on a G20 meeting. The UK authorities have an interest in protecting information that they have classified. 2) The UK law in question was passed in 2000 and has been upheld as being sufficient authority to detain people who aren't engaged in terrorism. 3) Greenwald has said Miranda was carrying classified information that he got from Snowden. The UK is under no obligation to let unauthorized people carry classified information, which likely includes their own classified information, across their border. 4) Miranda wan't held beyond the time period the law permits. One can dislike the overreach of the various security laws without thinking that Miranda was improperly detained. Especially when Greenwald bragged about Snowden taking information on "sources and methods". 'I think it would be harmful to the U.S. government, as they perceive their own interests, if the details of those programs were revealed,' [Greenwald] said. - http://www.dailymail...NSA-operates.html FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,541 by rcareaga 8/19/13 2:10:14 PM Reply	quod erat demonstrandum The UK law in question was passed in 2000 and has been upheld as being sufficient authority to detain people who aren't engaged in terrorism. Thank you. cordially,
Post #379,542 by Another Scott 8/19/13 2:26:09 PM Reply	Perhaps inartfully expressed. How about this: http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4578756 119. NickT says: August 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm Using terrorism statutes to routinely harass Laura Poitras and detain GreenwaldÂs spouse for nine hours is wrong because they arenÂt terrorists This is ridiculously silly Â and ignorant of how legal realities actually work. Statutes are given names partly to distinguish them from the mass of material passed through parliament, partly as a fairly loose guideline to the content of said statute. The name implies no limitation on the powers conveyed to the police and courts by said statute. In other words, it is perfectly normal for a non-terrorist to be detained under Âanti-terroristÂ legislation, just as, for example, it was normal (and necessary) back in the day for cyber-criminals to be detained under older legislation that had been written before the internet existed. ThatÂs simply the reality of how the legal system works Â and always has. You wonÂt ever have a legal system that covers every eventuality with its own nicely labeled law Â and so existing laws are extended to cover new situations. Nor is it unusual for a suspect to be detained for a period of some hours. As for the Âroutine harassmentÂ claim, that is an allegation made by Poitras, rather than an established fact. FWIW. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,551 by rcareaga 8/19/13 3:55:24 PM Reply	My point being... that in the post 9/2001 climate of hysteria a number of laws were passed in the name of fighting/protecting against "terrorism." These laws gave the authorities near-unprecedented latitude in the realm of procedures, standards of evidence, protections for the accused, et cetera, but hey: ya got nothing to worry about if you ain't a terrorist, amirite? (Emirate?) That's just fine, until, as they inevitably will, the authorities find it convenient to conflate "terrorism" with "any conduct that gets in our way." You think it's a stretch from "That helicopter video* released by Manning was used to fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the Middle east" to "Manning is a terrorist"? I don't. *That helicopter video (indirect link): http://urschleim.blo...ghdad-street.html Any day that finds Bradley Manning in a military prison while Dick Cheney is permitted outside the precincts of The Hague is a day without justice. cordially,
Post #379,558 by mmoffitt 8/19/13 4:53:31 PM Reply	Amen.
Post #379,559 by Another Scott 8/19/13 5:58:32 PM Reply	Reasonable points, but... Yes, the laws are too broad. Our national freakout over the damage done by 19 guys with knives was uncalled-for and it's well past time for those things (like the Patriot Act) to be scaled back. But I come back to the fact that the guys who have access to this secret stuff do operate in a system with oversight. Likely not enough, but there is oversight within the system. Nobody at the NSA who expects to have a job next year is going to be intentionally snooping on us. That's the bottom line. Times have changed since Hoover's day - for the better. http://www.nsa.gov/a...s/oversight.shtml I recognize that things don't always go according to plan, and recognize that there are people (like Snowden) who will break the rules (for whatever reason). No human system is perfect. But I don't accept that there's a huge conspiracy to make all of the things said on that web page into just pretty mouth noises for rubes like me. Civil servants generally take their jobs and their oaths seriously - they wouldn't work there if they didn't. I understand that lots of people don't accept and don't believe that, but that's where I am. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,561 by folkert 8/19/13 9:18:37 PM Reply	Didja see the Movie - 2 Guns? If not, you need to. Its a good laugh. Bit of nudity and some language... but it is pretty good! -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #379,563 by Another Scott 8/19/13 9:24:08 PM Reply	I'll put it on the list. Thanks.
Post #379,593 by folkert 8/20/13 10:15:40 AM Reply	If you watch it soon... You'l understand why I said it was a rec. It included the DEA, the USN Intelligence and the CIA all working the same thing from conflicting angles. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C

Welcome to IWETHEY!