It might be dangerous, but as I wrote, so are the actions of the government. We are part of a social contract. One of the fundamental element of this social contract is the respect and the protection of our fundamental liberties by the government. I argue that our governments are breaking this contract. In this particular case, I argue that Greenwald has every moral right to defend himself and his partner against a government acting as a police state. If the same event had occured, say, to an Iranian journalist who has acces to Syrian confidential informations, would you argue too that he should refrain from threatening to release said informations? Same causes, same effects.
If a supposedly democratic government begins to secretely ask secret courts to allow secret spying on his citizens on the basis of secret legal arguments and secret evidences, and then manage to have relatives of journalists enquiring about this issue detained arbitrarily for undisclosed reason in foreign countries, I argue that we are well into the realm of oppression and that this government, having reneged on his duties, has lost all legitimacy to demand that the persecuted citizen should refrain from using means of possibly dubious legality to protect himself.
I argue that attacks against fundamental liberties by a government are way more grievious that any kind of disclosure of confidential informations by an individual citizen. That a government surrounding itself in so much secrecy wrt actions that are seemingly infringing on people’s freedoms cannot expect that people will respect its desire to keep secret informations that it had deemed confidential. Only if citizens are fully convinced that the government will restrict secrecy as much as possible and will never use it to cover up actions that are detrimental to the citizenry can it expect that the citizenry will respect its demands.
There’s an easy way out for the government : stop acting in secrecy, disclose as much information as possible about its actions, instead of using the word “terrorism” to frighten people into submission. There’s no easy way out for the persecuted citizen facing a state that hides everything it does behind the words “confidential” and “terrorism”.
I will remind everybody that our democracies survived much worst threats than the terrorist threat we’re now facing. And that we certainly can survive this without recourse to secret court decisions, without spying on citizens, without detaining people arbitrarily, without denying due process, without preventing people from even disclosing legal threats against them, and so on.
To sum up I’m arguing that we have begun to destroy the village in order to save it and that the villagers can’t be expected not to try to stop the bulldozers.
I think you overstate the salutory effects and intentions of Greenwald/Snowden’s actions as well as the degree to which the US and UK governments’ conduct is an attack on fundamental liberties.
Indeed, the notion that a regime like Iran would ever countenance disclosure of confidential information without prosecution (as routinely happens in the US and UK, as in this very case), seems awfully wrong to me, though I’m no Iran expert. What we’re talking about are the very outer boundaries of a very liberty-protective concept (discretionary non-enforcement of unequivocal criminal law because the act is ostensibly for the public good) because, at least in part, the actions in question go beyond what our liberty-loving protections are designed for (i.e., involve threats of retaliation rather than investigative journalism). Comparing it to police states seems quite exaggerated to me.
The US had advance notice that Miranda would be detained (cue the joke about the US receiving a Miranda warning), although it did not request the detention.
Apropos of nothing, the picture in the linked article makes Greenwald and Miranda look like Reed Richards grabbing George Michael.
Can you point out which words identify this statement as “should” instead of “is?” For example, it’s is a contraction for “it is,” rather than “it should be.”
Then you’re not the only one who would be advised to consider whether you’re reading an opinion before demanding a cite. Or at least asking to make sure that it’s meant to be a statement of legal fact.
The British/EU submission to sordid USA Govt interests is being taken to the borders of paroxysm. First the President of Bolivia. Now, the Brazilian partner to Greenwald, The Guardian journalist who is publishing Snowden’s leaks about Obama’s Orwellian estate of absolute paranoid surveillance. Incommunicado and without a lawyer, he had his electronic belongings confiscated and was interrogated for nine hours on Greenwald’s work, all based on an “anti-terrorism” law – while only being questioned about Snowden and Greenwald. WTF? The only terror here is what’s becoming of our so-called “Western Freedoms”…
Rights? What “rights”? You don’t have any in the new “Democratic” Police States.
The Stasi would be envious.
As far as what the real motive behind the detention was, I suggest anyone who is interested in the topic read this magnificent NYT article: How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets. With all she’s been through – detained over 40 times since her Iraq documentary and currently working closely with Glenn on this story – I am pretty darn sure there was nothing incriminating in any of the electronic items that were seized from Miranda. The woman knows security as if her life depended on it – and it’s likely just a drone away, so she should. Had they needed a ‘courier’ as some have suggested, it is extremely naive to think they would have used Glenn’s partner. Besides, cat’s already out of the bag. Both of them have the goods and this was simply an appalling very bad move by Britain. Who knows what Glenn will reveal next?
Godspeed to all of them – stay away from the US/Britain by all means.
You honestly think the WH wasn’t consulted in the decision to detain Miranda prior to the fact? I mean I realize you are likely one of the foremost Obama defenders on The Dope, but seriously, take the blinders off – not everything that shines is gold. England – and most of the EU – won’t sneeze w/out getting the US’s permission first.
Then you obviously believe the “denial” – this coming from a Gov that told it’s EU poodles to deny Ivo Morale’s flight back to Bolivia re-fueling because they thought Snowden might be on it. Sorry Marley, I realize you idolize Obama, but not all that shines is gold.
We already know the U.S. was informed about the detention. I am mocking your presumption that the British government is slavishly taking orders from the U.S. I think they can do stupid things on their own. The British, after all, are the ones who get the credit for inventing the “security state.” I now eagerly await your accusing me of lots of things for having the nerve to ask you to prove some of the things you’re saying. It’s not my fault you can’t substantiate your claims.
You know? It seems pointless to post links to back-up what I say as it appears obvious you don’t give a damn and simply ignore them – but that being said, here’s one more you can add to your ignore list: Cameron Proves Greenwald Right
Don’t expect any straight answers from you. But it might draw some homophobic ‘jokes’ from others due to my phrasing…anything to draw attention from what’s really happening.
If that’s the best you can do to back up what you’re saying, yes, it’s pointless. That’s Andrew Sullivan asking David Cameron if the U.S. encouraged the British authorities to detain Miranda. Eagle-eyed readers will note that a writer asking if something happened is not the same as evidence proving the thing happened.
AFAIK, Glenn Greenwald is an American citizen in good standing in the UK – meanwhile, he is being demonized by powerful sectors of the US Govt & media. So who do you think wants to get their hands on him more?