|Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 61):|
I hope that everything in Snowden's files becomes public. More so for the embarrassment of the Western establishment than anything. The UK is shameful for their actions...personally I won't be going there anytime soon.
There was no reason to hold this man under a law concerning terrorism....what was his crime in the eyes of police or any international intelligence organization? That he is the partner of the journalist that published Snowden's information?
Horrid and shameful.
And yet Britain was instrumental in invading Iraq and killing Qaddafi. Pathetic really.
Be careful what you wish for....
Even if you think that the length and manner of his detention was excessive (I do), they did have reason to suspect that he might be carrying sensitive information.
In the same way that Customs Officers might suspect someone is carrying contraband.
Greenwald can bitch all he likes, even if you think he is doing us a service in his exposures, the fact remains that he has published information that governments think is sensitive and must have expected some kind of reaction.
But I don't think Snowden would release, if he has it, anything that would directly aid terrorists.
He was, it seems, motivated by watching on TV
, his bosses tell outright lies to US lawmakers about the scope of NSA intel gathering.
I don't think he is a traitor.
Maybe it would help some if some US politicians could curb their knee jerk reactions to call for massive prison terms (before any trial), or even the death penalty, thankfully none with the power to actually do such a thing. Yet.
Have a go at the UK all you like, I don't see anything remotely like that coming from any British politician, even the idiots.
So he's not another Assange, that creep wanted to release info that would directly threaten lives, including those providing intel on enemies, he thought that 'they deserve it'.
(Given how he seems to be around women, may be has some deep empathy with the Taliban).
He was prevented from doing so since he needed the cooperation of newspapers, including The Guardian and the NYT, so he fell out with them, he seems to fall out with everyone eventually.
Back to Greenwald and his partner, to get where he was going to, this man did not need to transit through LHR
, touchdown in the UK at all.
Given how embedded the UK's GCHQ and the NSA are (the real 'special relationship'), this was a somewhat foolish act.
Greenwald is a experienced journalist, something of an authority on this whole subject, you'd think a red light would have flashed on knowing his partner and courier would be on UK soil.
I don't really buy the whole 'we are in a police state' idea.
Not because governments are sometimes acting as they are, it's motivation.
And technology, they are neurotic about having any blind spots in their ability to gather intel on terrorists, who have been shown to be very security aware.
The same would have happened after the invention of the telephone, I'd like to know when the first ever telephone tap was authorised.
Now we have the web and it's myriad related offshoots, the idea that hostile forces could organise within that frightens governments.
This whole issue to me seems a textbook case of technology being way ahead of the law, ahead of the institutions that govern intel and it's scope.
And to try and keep up, corners are cut, the best analogy I can think of beyond governments, is how the established music industry reacted to downloading, starting with Napster.
Governments that rely on the ballot box to gain and stay in power fear being labelled 'incompetent' or 'soft' if a major terrorist attack happens that better intel might have prevented.
They fear the reaction of the electorate.