Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The government is desperate to stop whistleblowers

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.30am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old 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 under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

by Anonymousreply 12912/21/2013

They should never stop.

by Anonymousreply 108/18/2013

Just a taste of things to come.

Peggy Noonan actually had an intelligent column this week about where our country is headed and it ain't pretty. Even that old gas bag is frightened.

The First Amendment is crumbling right in front of our eyes.

by Anonymousreply 208/18/2013

Is Obama to blame for this or is it just coming to light under his watch?

by Anonymousreply 408/18/2013

No, R4, the blame goes back decades. Obama just happens to be using laws passed by Rethuglicans to destroy our civil liberties.

It would be poetic and funny if it weren't so sick and sad.

by Anonymousreply 508/18/2013

Remember Creon, the illegitimate and insecure ruler, bricking Antigone into a room for her defiance?

by Anonymousreply 708/18/2013

Like it was yesterday, r7.

by Anonymousreply 808/18/2013

R9, you're insane. Even if what you say is true, it does not make the government's actions right.

by Anonymousreply 1008/18/2013

LOVE that his name is Miranda. Some "who's on first" jokes just write themselves.

by Anonymousreply 1108/18/2013

Obama was the perfect man to carry out the plan.

Yeah, it was all set in motion by Republicans. But the Democrats fought them then. Now, the Democratic politicians are defending these policies because it's a Dem President implementing them. And because of that, he's been able to go a lot further.

Meanwhile, apologists still defend him, even to the point of defending these insane policies (see Reply9).

The next Prez will put the nail in the coffin of civil liberties, whether it's a Dem or Repuke, because we'll only get a Dem option who's another corporatist. Like Hilary.

by Anonymousreply 1208/18/2013

r12 is right, unfortunately.

by Anonymousreply 1308/18/2013

Are there any data about the application of the False Claims Act under recent presidential administrations? The NSA mess is the tip of the iceberg.

by Anonymousreply 1408/18/2013

Okay, I'm going to make a stupid comment here. We don't need to discuss that it's stupid I'm already admitting that. But I am wondering something.

I'm not planning to overthrow the government. My emails to people are either work related or to my family discussing what we will do for dinner or what our evening plans are. Same with my phone calls. It' all just about my day to day life which doesn't involve harming anyone or any anarchy. So if my world is safer because the government is scanning this stuff....

How am I being hurt? What is the big deal?

Stupid question, I know that people will feel that way, but maybe I can get at least one intelligent answer.

by Anonymousreply 1508/18/2013

R15 - let's start with an easy answer.

It isn't you who will be deciding how innocent your emails are.

You have no control over the emails that will be sent to you.

Google COINTELPRO - it will shed some more light on the downside of government surveillance.

by Anonymousreply 1608/18/2013

The British Government detained this man.

by Anonymousreply 1708/18/2013

R15 Where to begin? You don't understand the basis of our constitutional rights.

by Anonymousreply 1808/18/2013

[Quote]It isn't you who will be deciding how innocent your emails are.

So "Let's eat at Chili's tonight" can be construed as treasonous?

by Anonymousreply 1908/18/2013

R15,

The first thing would be to revisit the foundations of our history and government--like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and also our Declaration of Independence. You might want to attend a class that fosters discussion--check nearby elementary schools and ask if they have an opening in their civics class.

Secondly, you might want to get involved with our country's laws and policies. Read good newspapers (Washington Post, Guardian), browse the current events section of your library or bookstore, and learn about the issues that are shaping the current political climate of America. And then, ask yourself what your opinions are. Do you think the way that the government is operating is fair, legal, and consonant with our history?

Once you have some formulated opinions, you'll have shifted into the kind of person that the certain elements of the government are interested in tracking, surveiling, and recording. They will skip over the emails and calls of the person you used to be, the guy who has nothing more profound in his email than, "I'll order my babyback ribs with TWO cobs of corn, instead of corn and hot potato, thank you VERY MUCH." You might reason that since Americans have freedom of speech and expression, a concerted effort by the government to collect your personal communiques and use them against you at a later date is infringement on your personal rights.

That's enough to get you started.

by Anonymousreply 2008/18/2013

R19

George Santayana:

[quote] Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.

Read your history - then reconsider how an innocent email like your example could get you into trouble.

by Anonymousreply 2108/18/2013

[quote]Do you think the way that the government is operating is fair, legal, and consonant with our history?

No, and I didn't suggest it was fair or legal. Reading your three paragraphs of insults and I conclude that no one has still given me an intelligent answer to my question.

I'm aware of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the violations this poses. That wasn't the question.

Given the fact that you think you are so knowledgeable, consider the fact that you still can't answer a simple question.

[quote]Once you have some formulated opinions, you'll have shifted into the kind of person that the certain elements of the government are interested in tracking, surveiling, and recording.

Apparently to have an opinion is to be dangerous to this country, according to your reasoning. I have opinions. I learned back in the 90s that email wasn't private. I just don't share my opinions online. You seem to think you are entitled to. Who's the stupid one now?

by Anonymousreply 2208/18/2013

[quote]Greenwald/Assange/Snowden are right wing libertarians. Any liberal who sides with them is being played. Snowden is in Russia, has Greenwald spoken out against the heinous atrocities happening to the LGBT community there?

R9, I suspect you are retarded, since Greenwald has exposed MANY crimes by the Bush/Cheney regime.

You're just too stupid to google.

Please fuck off until you learn to read, moron.

by Anonymousreply 2308/18/2013

[all posts by flame bait troll (hates:men,women,muslims,gays,lesbians,jews and Obama, loves posting about stabbing women, bashing gays, killing jews etc.) #10 removed, ISP notified with full text of all posts.]

by Anonymousreply 2408/18/2013

If you think that anything you do online is private or even more stupidly that you think you have some right to privacy online, then you are just too stupid to converse with, R20.

by Anonymousreply 2508/18/2013

R12 aka TheForgottenAngel---

I love you.

Until real liberals wake up and see that Dems and Reps are on the same team, and that they will destroy the country unless we stop them, then people like R9 will thrive.

Check out this site-

Economicpolicyjournal.Com

by Anonymousreply 2608/18/2013

R24-

YOU are the traitor, and I hope you get shipped to Guantanamo.

by Anonymousreply 2708/18/2013

R25-

I pray that you and your family get shipped off to the death camps- it would be a just reward for your evil.

by Anonymousreply 2808/18/2013

Because praying for families to go to death camps is so benevolent.

I wouldn't mind privacy online, I'm just not stupid enough to expect it and that makes me evil.

Okay.

Now I see why they get away with what they do. Because there are so many dumb fucks out there.

by Anonymousreply 2908/18/2013

R4- R15- R19- R22- R25- (the same fucking moron)

So, if you posted a bad review of a DC area restaurant that was loved by Bush, or Cheney, or Obama- well, then you would have no problem with him ordering the murder of you and your friends and family?

Trolls like you are retarded.

by Anonymousreply 3008/18/2013

[quote]So, if you posted a bad review of a DC area restaurant that was loved by Bush, or Cheney, or Obama- well, then you would have no problem with him ordering the murder of you and your friends and family?

what the fuck kind of hypothesis is that?

Yes, I'm the retarded one.

by Anonymousreply 3108/18/2013

R29-

I don't WANT them to go to Obama's (or McCain's, or Clinton's) Death Camps- I'm simply pointing out that your moronic views will result in many innocent people dying at the hands of our government.

You really are that stupid!

by Anonymousreply 3208/18/2013

R30,

He actually warned us of his stupidity--and not just once, but over and over again.

[quote] Okay, I'm going to make a stupid comment here.

[quote] We don't need to discuss that it's stupid I'm already admitting that.

[quote] Stupid question...

He knows it, we know it. What more is there to say?

by Anonymousreply 3308/18/2013

Clearly it can't be answered. Insults thrown, but the answer can't be given.

And that is why we as a country find ourselves in this predicament, today.

by Anonymousreply 3408/18/2013

R31 (et al) make me sad.

Government education has robbed them of the ability to make connections between exaggerated similies and the effect that their belief in omniscient government will have on society.

by Anonymousreply 3508/18/2013

R33-

I would suck your dick right now.

by Anonymousreply 3608/18/2013

My question again, which apparently cannot be answered will be restated for those who cannot do anything but throw insults at differing opinions.

For the record, I do think the government snooping is overreaching and unconstitutional. I've stated that and that's a given. That isn't the question.

This snooping has been going on for awhile. If we use this thread as fact (which is stupid in and of itself), then it's been going on since Reagan or Nixon or at least the first Bush. In any case, it's been going on far longer than Obama's presidency, we all concede that.

And nobody has been jailed for ranting against a President's favorite restaurant online.

The ones who have been detained or had surveillance done on them are journalists (which is concerning and horrible) but it's not your average day joe.

Look at the title of this thread, it's WHISTLEBLOWERS. Granted, I think whistleblowers should be afforded constitutional rights, but again, that wasn't the question. The question was how is the average joe affected. And I get death camps wished on my family, called stupid and not a single one can answer the question.

You all are truly Rand Paul-lite, libertarians who are anti-government but can come up with no plausible reason why.

Go ahead and cut me down, avoid the question and continue to pat each other on the back and wish to suck each others dick because you are so much better than everybody else. Meanwhile, I'll continue to wait for someone intelligent to answer the question.

by Anonymousreply 3708/18/2013

[quote] Insults thrown, but the answer can't be given.

Now you're breaking my heart.

The most simple answer is that this type of pervasive surveillance puts innocent people, who have the *right* to have and express whatever opinions they hold, in danger AND that it perverts our democratic system of government.

Do we know that this is a dangerous scenario for the citizens of this country? We sure do because we've seen it before. Do yourself a favor and read Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism if memory fails you--or if you have no memory--of the horrors of any government that endeavors to control people's opinions of the government.

Now I told you the answer in one of my posts upthread, but I gave you a little extra guidance because you seemed like you needed one of those rails that they put in the handicapped bathroom stalls to keep unsteady people from falling in the toilet.

I did all that, and not even a thank you.

By the way--

[quote] And that is why we as a country find ourselves in this predicament, today.

you don't need a comma after "predicament."

by Anonymousreply 3808/18/2013

People are railing against the government publicly every day. Orson Scott Card, Ted Nugent, etc. they aren't being shipped to death camps. What are you all going on about? Can you stop with the insults?

by Anonymousreply 3908/18/2013

R15 - your question has been asked and answered. In part by you.

You just don't like the answers.

You've admitted the surveillance in question isn't legal.

Based upon that can you see the problem with your basic position - that you aren't doing anything illegal therefore you shouldn't worry?

Why would you assume a government that won't follow its own laws will not infringe upon the rights of citizens whether or not they are doing something illegal?

You're acting like the US government has a history of illegal surveillance of citizens - and no harm every came of it.

Have the decency to read history before taking the naive position of "I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I worry?"

by Anonymousreply 4008/18/2013

[quote]This snooping has been going on for awhile. If we use this thread as fact (which is stupid in and of itself), then it's been going on since Reagan or Nixon or at least the first Bush. In any case, it's been going on far longer than Obama's presidency, we all concede that.

Dingdingding! The US Government has been snooping since the 1800s. The fact that you are too stupid too see how evil that is makes me sick.

[quote]And nobody has been jailed for ranting against a President's favorite restaurant online.

Not yet.

[quote]The ones who have been detained or had surveillance done on them are journalists (which is concerning and horrible) but it's not your average day joe.

So, if a "liberal socialist" journalist was detained you would cheer it?

[quote]Look at the title of this thread, it's WHISTLEBLOWERS. Granted, I think whistleblowers should be afforded constitutional rights, but again, that wasn't the question. The question was how is the average joe affected. And I get death camps wished on my family, called stupid and not a single one can answer the question

Sorry. You don't get to pick and choose- if they stop ANY journalist, it infringes on free speech.

[quote]You all are truly Rand Paul-lite, libertarians who are anti-government but can come up with no plausible reason why.

So, only socialists are allowed an opinion. Sad.

[quote]Go ahead and cut me down, avoid the question and continue to pat each other on the back and wish to suck each others dick because you are so much better than everybody else. Meanwhile, I'll continue to wait for someone intelligent to answer the question.

No need to expose how ignorant you are- you've proven it with your bullshit posts.

by Anonymousreply 4108/18/2013

Why would The Guardian stoop to employing the prostitute who's fucking one of its "journalists?" Miss Miranda should be in Brazil working on her tan, not getting involved in matters she could never comprehend!

And that's reason number 5,000 why it's hard to take Glenn Greenwald seriously.

by Anonymousreply 4208/18/2013

[quote]Why would you assume a government that won't follow its own laws will not infringe upon the rights of citizens whether or not they are doing something illegal?

Finally something approaching intelligence.

I'm aware of history. Given the fact that U.S. government spying IS our history, I'm surprise more of you aren't aware of it.

by Anonymousreply 4308/18/2013

The systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights is bound to impact all Americans in the long run. When one person loses the protections and freedoms guaranteed to United States citizens, it puts all of us in jeopardy.

R37, do you honestly think the government using strong-arm tactics against journalists doesn't keep us from knowing what's going on in our own country? The fact that our media is made up of Pavlovian dogs who slobber when their masters ring a bell means we're not getting the information guaranteed by a free press.

[quote]The ones who have been detained or had surveillance done on them are journalists (which is concerning and horrible) but it's not your average day joe.

Do you know for a fact, R37, that "average day joe[s]" are not being detained? How about all of the airline passengers the TSA has detained on groundless suspicions?

Are you truly this dense?

by Anonymousreply 4408/18/2013

R41 is too far off base to even respond to.

by Anonymousreply 4508/18/2013

R41 and R42 and r43-

Why aren't you reading LRC or economicpolicyjournal.com and seeking the REAL reason for this shit?

by Anonymousreply 4608/18/2013

[quote] The question was how is the average joe affected.

Alright I'll bite.

The average Joe is affected in a million ways that all stem from the reality that his government is a democracy only in name.

So things like this happen: -the average Joe supports (and pays taxes that should be directed to other avenues) a never-ending war effort because the people who might educate him have been silenced

-the average Joe drinks polluted water that his politicians tell him is clean, eats contaminated plants that have the gov't stamp of approval on it because the gov't and the powers that be want you to continue paying out

-(you can insert your own example of what happens when democracy doesn't work)

Average Joe is, in effect, a lazy asshole because the people who are shaming the devil are the reporters and the whistleblowers. However, Average Joe benefits immensely from them without lifting a finger of his own because his democracy is functioning in good faith (more or less). Average Joe, however, can do his part in supporting the health of our democracy by standing up for the people who are doing the heavy lifting--the journalists and whistleblowers. By calling the congressman about perversions of justice, by spreading the news to other average Joes, they put pressure on the politicians to keep our democracy healthy. It's a vox populi thing.

Is this happening now to some extent? Are there always villains in sharp suits who are trying to make our democracy less of one? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we throw in the towel and let them do whatever the hell they want. It's up to us, the public of average Joes, to confront them.

In a very visceral way, we the public are the most powerful "check" in the system of checks and balances. And in our lovely government of double-talking politicians, we (the public) are at the same time the most interested and the most disinterested players. But to play our part, we need to be educated--and the only people in this era that are providing the ugly truth are the few who are most vulnerable to being imprisoned and tortured under NSA laws.

by Anonymousreply 4708/18/2013

[quote]Why aren't you reading LRC or economicpolicyjournal.com and seeking the REAL reason for this shit?

Well, mostly because those sites don't know the difference between wacky conspiracy theories and reality.

by Anonymousreply 4808/18/2013

R47-

Please read economicpolicyjournal.com or lewrockwell.com and try to see why socialism sucks.

by Anonymousreply 4908/18/2013

R48-

Try more.

It's not our fault you are retarded.

by Anonymousreply 5008/18/2013

Maybe you're the one who doesn't know the difference, R48.

by Anonymousreply 5108/18/2013

I would never rely on Lou Rockwell for any information except how to enrich the already wealthy.

by Anonymousreply 5208/18/2013

R49,

Hey man--one moment you want to get naughty with me, the next you want me to "try" to see why socialism sucks?

What gives?

I have an advanced degree in Economic Policy--I think I have a good grasp on socialism and its history.

by Anonymousreply 5308/18/2013

And see, through all the babble, R47 gives me hope and for that, I thank Datalounge.

Good job, R47. I'm proud of you.

by Anonymousreply 5408/18/2013

R54, many thanks, bud.

by Anonymousreply 5508/18/2013

I hope you've all read this article about Laura Poitras who was Snowden's first contact. The article details their initial communication. Poitras works closely with Geenwald, who credits her with the NSA story getting into the mainstream.

[italic]This past January, Laura Poitras received a curious e-mail from an anonymous stranger requesting her public encryption key. For almost two years, Poitras had been working on a documentary about surveillance, and she occasionally received queries from strangers. She replied to this one and sent her public key — allowing him or her to send an encrypted e-mail that only Poitras could open, with her private key — but she didn’t think much would come of it.

The stranger responded with instructions for creating an even more secure system to protect their exchanges. Promising sensitive information, the stranger told Poitras to select long pass phrases that could withstand a brute-force attack by networked computers. “Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second,” the stranger wrote.

Before long, Poitras received an encrypted message that outlined a number of secret surveillance programs run by the government. She had heard of one of them but not the others. After describing each program, the stranger wrote some version of the phrase, “This I can prove.”

Seconds after she decrypted and read the e-mail, Poitras disconnected from the Internet and removed the message from her computer. “I thought, O.K., if this is true, my life just changed,” she told me last month. “It was staggering, what he claimed to know and be able to provide. I just knew that I had to change everything.”

Poitras remained wary of whoever it was she was communicating with. She worried especially that a government agent might be trying to trick her into disclosing information about the people she interviewed for her documentary, including Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks. “I called him out,” Poitras recalled. “I said either you have this information and you are taking huge risks or you are trying to entrap me and the people I know, or you’re crazy.”

The answers were reassuring but not definitive. Poitras did not know the stranger’s name, sex, age or employer (C.I.A.? N.S.A.? Pentagon?). In early June, she finally got the answers. Along with her reporting partner, Glenn Greenwald, a former lawyer and a columnist for The Guardian, Poitras flew to Hong Kong and met the N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, who gave them thousands of classified documents, setting off a major controversy over the extent and legality of government surveillance. Poitras was right that, among other things, her life would never be the same.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 5608/18/2013

And this is how we correct ourselves.

by Anonymousreply 5708/18/2013

The British have a history of mistaking Brazilians for terrorists. David's lucky he didn't end up like me.

by Anonymousreply 5808/19/2013

R53-

Yes, I would get naughty with you. At least you understand that our government is off the rails and careening quickly towards totalitarianism.

Anytime you give the government power it will abuse it. That's why socialism is evil- it's all dressed in fine clothes and makeup, but once you take off the spanx and see it natural lighting it is a monster with tinymeat.

Socialism is just fascism with better PR and brand management.

Since you are an intelligent man, I'll pose 3 short questions.

1) Do you own your body?

2) Do you think that assault/murder, theft, and fraud are always wrong?

3) Do you think that you can implement socialism without violating the preceding 2 questions?

by Anonymousreply 5908/19/2013

Test

by Anonymousreply 6008/19/2013

Socialism is not evil. In fact, the people have more control than they could ever have in a society where private corporations run everything.

by Anonymousreply 6108/20/2013

It's important to remember that libertarians still believe defense is a proper government function, so they are blowing smoke up your ass when they pretend they are against government intelligence ops.

by Anonymousreply 6208/20/2013

I guess the Libertarian Idiot Troll is bored talking about hyperinflation and gold.

by Anonymousreply 6308/20/2013

Oh, he'll be back to that any day now, R63. He got his ass handed to him on the thread where he was predicting that interest rates would continue to skyrocket, thereby collapsing the economy, so he's been laying low for a bit. The fact that he's always wrong in his predictions doesn't bother him, though; he'll either insist that a) his predictions really did come true (for some weird definition of "true"), or b) that, okay, this one didn't but it will any day now, really, truly, this time he means it, or c) we're too stupid to really understand economics, or d) all of the above.

by Anonymousreply 6408/20/2013

R61-

I guess you didn't get the memo that corporations are people according to the government. Those corporations are a fiction created by the government and would not exist in a true libertarian free market.

Please just answer these questions-

Do you own your body?

Do you think that assault/murder, theft and fraud are wrong?

If you answer "yes" to both, then you must admit that socialism is wrong and evil.

by Anonymousreply 6508/20/2013

Thank you for a reasonable answer, R47.

by Anonymousreply 6608/20/2013

[quote]If you answer "yes" to both, then you must admit that socialism is wrong and evil.

On the other hand, if you answer "yes" to both, you have to admit that property is theft, and that all private enterprise is evil.

Idiot thought experiments are fun!

by Anonymousreply 6708/20/2013

R67-

Huh?

So, the iPad I'm typing on is "stolen"? And my company is evil for connecting workers with companies?

Please elaborate.

by Anonymousreply 6808/20/2013

R69-

And retards will retard and retard until they die.

by Anonymousreply 7008/20/2013

Miranda looks like another Brazilian hottie who has been taken up by an older established guy in policitcs/journalism - Lord Mandelson's Reinaldo de Silva sure set a precedent, though none as yet has climbed as high as high.

Wonder if David's friends call him "Carmen" ?

by Anonymousreply 7108/20/2013

The reporting of this story, here in the UK at any rate, makes it seem quite matter of fact and ordinary that a man can have a younger foreign same sex 'partner' without it causing any comment of its own accord.

by Anonymousreply 7208/20/2013

David Miranda actually looks like sex on legs - (rather like George Michael's guy) wonder how the older guy bagged him? - did they meet in a club? or is there some agency that sets up ambitious escort types with appreciative older richer gentlemen ? Maybe it was a personal ad in one of the high class papers, like The Guardian?

by Anonymousreply 7308/20/2013

R73-

Some of us find intelligence and passion sexy. I would love to spend some intimate time with GG.

by Anonymousreply 7408/20/2013

Ewwwww

by Anonymousreply 7508/21/2013

r73 I am sure there are ways ambitious young latin guys can meet the kind of older guys they want to partner with, like hanging around the bars and watering holes (maybe working in a restaurant?) in the Westminster area where MPs and influential types meet ....

by Anonymousreply 7608/21/2013

R19 should be arrested for even THINKING of eating at Chili's. Eeek!

by Anonymousreply 7708/21/2013

[quote]So, the iPad I'm typing on is "stolen"? And my company is evil for connecting workers with companies?

OF COURSE, you brainwashed fool! You ipad is stolen because it belongs to everyone! Your company is evil for exploiting honest labor! All power to the proletariat!

(cue "The Internationale")

R73: they met on a beach in Rio.

by Anonymousreply 7808/21/2013

GG was vacationing in Rio after he'd broken up with a longtime partner. He met Mr. Miranda on a beach, love at first sight, quite romantic actually.

by Anonymousreply 7908/21/2013

They actually sent government thugs with badges to the UK Guardian HQ and smashed their computers with sledgehammers. How Soviet does it have to get before people wake up and smell the totalitarianism?

----

You know it's bad when Russia accuses Britain of breaking human-rights and freed-of-the-press declarations, but that is what it has done following the revelations that the UK Prime Minister Cameron was behind the decision to 'pulverize' The Guardian's hard-drives in an effort to suppress more leaks. As Reuters reports, two sources with direct knowledge confirm Cameron ordered his top civil servant to "deal with this matter." Falling back on the old playbook, the government defends its actions on the basis of 'threatening national security', and adds, "we won't go into specific cases but if highly sensitive information was being held insecurely we have a responsibility to secure it," with regard the 'pulverization'.

Via Reuters,

British Prime Minister David Cameron ordered his top civil servant to try to stop revelations flowing from the Guardian newspaper about U.S. and British surveillance programs, two sources with direct knowledge of the matter said.

News that Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood had contacted the Guardian drags Cameron into a storm over Britain's response to media coverage of secrets leaked by fugitive U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

...

The sources named the official as Heywood, who is Cameron's most senior policy adviser. "The prime minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to deal with this matter, that's true," one source told Reuters.

Government supporters say information leaked by Snowden, who has obtained asylum in Russia, could threaten national security. However, rights groups have accused the government of an assault on press freedom over a series of incidents.

...

A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We won't go into specific cases but if highly sensitive information was being held insecurely we have a responsibility to secure it."

...

It has argued that these were operational security matters. Average: 4.842105

by Anonymousreply 8008/21/2013

R66,

Thanks for your thanks!

by Anonymousreply 8208/21/2013

I would also like to thank R47, great post. I urge all DLers to be vigilant against the right-wing trolls - they usually have subscriptions and post often and early during Primetime. It's important to let these fuckers know that they are NOT the majority on Datalounge

by Anonymousreply 8308/21/2013

Both sides are acting like r-soles.

Glenn Greenwald is being a drama queen and setting up his poor boyfriend as a mule. He is daring the security services to do something, then whining when they do.

The UK secret service smashing hard drives is incredibly dumb. Also coming down so hard on the leakers/whistleblowers gives them reason to run away.

Agree that the libertarian person with the gotcha questions is an utter bore. "Do you own your own body?" Zzzzz....

by Anonymousreply 8408/21/2013

R84-

If it is an "utter bore" to be asked whether you own your body, then why not answer?

It's a simple yes/no query.

by Anonymousreply 8508/21/2013

R83,

Many thanks!

by Anonymousreply 8708/21/2013

[quote] The idea that we're living in some kind of police state or that democracy is under threat because government agencies can access the metadata of individuals who are suspected of committing crimes that are actually of danger to the public is bullshit.

Oh, not just accessing the metadata of "criminals", my friend. Just journalists. Oh, and journalists' husbands. Oh wait, yeah - just about everyone. EVERYONE.

(Asshole.)

by Anonymousreply 8808/21/2013

They killed Michael Hastings-

Mad or made mad, Michael Hastings was clearly spooked. LA Weekly reports: Hastings was intensely interested in government surveillance of journalists. In May, the story broke about the Department of Justice obtaining the phone records of Associated Press reporters. A couple weeks later, Edward Snowden's revelations about the National Security Agency's massive surveillance program became public. Hastings was convinced he was a target.

His behavior grew increasingly erratic. Helicopters often circle over the hills, but Hastings believed there were more of them around whenever he was at home, keeping an eye on him. He came to believe his Mercedes was being tampered with. "Nothing I could say could console him," [his neighbor] Thigpen says.

One night in June, he came to Thigpen's apartment after midnight and urgently asked to borrow her Volvo. He said he was afraid to drive his own car. She declined, telling him her car was having mechanical problems.

"He was scared, and he wanted to leave town," she says.

The next day, around 11:15 a.m., she got a call from her landlord, who told her Hastings had died early that morning. His car had crashed into a palm tree at 75 mph and exploded in a ball of fire.

by Anonymousreply 8908/21/2013

[quote]If it is an "utter bore" to be asked whether you own your body, then why not answer? It's a simple yes/no query.

It's also a hilariously stupid query, which is why nobody is playing your silly games. A smart individual might get a clue from that....

by Anonymousreply 9008/22/2013

Yes, I own my own body.

Likewise, women all own their own bodies.

And precisely for that reason, I ignore the opinions of world-class Randian assholes Rand and Ron Paul, both of whom are aggressively opposed to abortion.

If you've got examples of Libertarians who fight for the right of women to control their bodies, I've love to hear it. Until then, your question is as pedantic as it is useless as it is hypocritical.

by Anonymousreply 9108/22/2013

Are the GG threads disappearing because he's known for suing everyone and their mother???

by Anonymousreply 9208/22/2013

[quote]If you agree that you own your body, then libertarianism is the only consistently logical philosophical system for you.

Actually, no other system precludes you from "owning your own body."

[quote]Socialism, Fascism, Communism, WTFeverism- all are based on the premise that the government controls your body.

Well, perhaps in Bizarro world, where definitions don't matter. Out here in the real world, none of those are based on any such premise, which is why you don't even try to defend such silliness.

[quote]The fact that you refuse to see that speaks more to your limited mental skills than it does to liberty. Please educate yourself and then come back.

ROFL... The fact that you are reduced to playing really stupid games instead of engaging in serious debate speaks more to your limited mental skills than it does to, well, anything. Please grow a brain and then come back.

by Anonymousreply 9408/23/2013

Ahhhh. R94-

The apologist for the police state on every thread. I was hoping you died from sucking so much diseased government cock, but I was wrong.

Please, tell us how spying on innocent people and supporting the PATRIOT(sic) ACT makes us good little slaves.

I am so happy you respond to theses threads- it makes it easier to expose your evil to the other posters.

Please, fellow DLrs, "trolldar" this fucking cunt at R94 and see how it always- ALWAYS- defends the government no matter what. It is just a government shill, and needs to be destroyed.

by Anonymousreply 9508/23/2013

[quote]The apologist for the police state on every thread. I was hoping you died from sucking so much diseased government cock, but I was wrong.

Love you too, snookums.

[quote]Please, tell us how spying on innocent people and supporting the PATRIOT(sic) ACT makes us good little slaves.

Why would I say something like that when it in no way resembles any argument I've ever made?

[quote]I am so happy you respond to theses threads- it makes it easier to expose your evil to the other posters.

LOL... So you keep saying and yet when I ask you to actually quote me saying anything even remotely "evil," you can never actually find anything. Why is that?

[quote]Please, fellow DLrs, "trolldar" this fucking cunt at R94 and see how it always- ALWAYS- defends the government no matter what. It is just a government shill, and needs to be destroyed.

LOL... Oh, I'm fine with them using trolldar. Unlike you, I'm assuming they can actually read and comprehend what I write.

And, of course, it hasn't escaped anyone's notice that you did exactly what I predicted and engaged in silly insults and even sillier games rather than trying to have a serious debate. Alas, you got your ass handed to you again. Sucks to be you.

by Anonymousreply 9608/23/2013

R96-

Please seek professional help.

Psychosis like that requires serious therapy.

by Anonymousreply 9708/23/2013

[quote] Socialism, Fascism, Communism, WTFeverism- all are based on the premise that the government controls your body.

I would like to see you prove this assertion.

The only political systems that have been based on owning other people's bodies were slavery, serfdom/feudalism, indentured servitude, and (for the wily) peonage. Hell, we've even done away with conscription. But, no, no western government operates on the premise of any of these systems today either overtly or covertly.

But if you want to talk about origins and premises, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Socialism and Fascism are movements that are philosophically and historically on opposing sides of the political spectrum.

Fascism was predominantly a militaristic, nationalistic, "conservative" (if you elect to use the word), rightist, movement of the middle class, which was taken much more seriously by the Germans than it ever was by the Italians. (In fact, Mussolini constantly contradicted his own "fascist" propaganda and used to mock his lackeys who took the rhetoric too seriously.)

Socialism--which I'll confine myself to socialism as it was hatched in England-- was on the other side: a leftist, working class (but aspirational), peaceful, movement that eventually transcended class when taken up by the upper classes and intellectuals.

Fascism, too, was quicker than a herpes flareup--here and gone in less than twenty years, from nose to tail. Even the if you lean back in time to reach the grandfathers of fascism, barf bags like Karl Lueger, you're not going very far.

Very different was socialism, which has roots far deeper than Marx. You can find the same sentiments, ideas, and propositions in the 1700s--going back to Carlyle or even Hogarth and forward to many of the brightest people of the turn of the century: the Fabians, Morris, the Webbs...the list goes on and on. And it is a philosophy that has endured, even to the present day.

If you want to shift the argument away from abstractions and talk about how socialism expresses itself in the contemporary world, even then it is hard to make blanket statements. Socialism, or let's say governments built on a socialist approach, are very different in Italy and in England--both countries that I have lived in--and in the Scandinavian countries. Some of the difference stem from culture, others from history.

Upthread I recommended Arendt, of course, but I'd also like to put forth one of my fav books on turn-of-the-century politics in Germ/Austria, remembering that German Fascism was a pan-germanic movement:

Fin-De-Siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture by Schorske

I'd love to continue the convo, but let's not get messy with our definitions of fasc and soc.

by Anonymousreply 9808/24/2013

"If it is an "utter bore" to be asked whether you own your body, then why not answer?

It's a simple yes/no query."

It is not a simple query. As a minor, I did not own my own body. As an adult I am not allowed to pump heroin into it or drive drunk, which I am fine with. I cannot easily get an abortion in numerous states. If I were ill and did not have insurance, God knows what would happen to my body.

We all own our bodies in theory but in other ways we do not.

by Anonymousreply 9908/24/2013

R99-

[quote]It is not a simple query.

Yes, it is.

[quote]As a minor...

And as soon as you decided to "live as an adult" then you were no longer a minor. Didn't you ever hear the phrase "as long as you live under MY roof!" and realize that adulthood had this thing called "consequences" or "responsibility"?

[quote]I did not own my own body.

But you did, even as a child, "own your body", or else molestation or child rape wouldn't be crimes. If your parents decided at age 17 to murder you, would that be okay? Since you don't "own" your body until some arbitrary age, then it is within their power to dispose of your body as they see fit.

If they don't own you, who does?

Can you see where your assertion that we don't own our bodies falls apart?

[quote]As an adult I am not allowed to pump heroin into it or drive drunk, which I am fine with.

You're fine with it. That's fine. So, define "drunk". If I have one drink and step on your toe, is that "drunk walking"? If I have a glass of wine and you hit my car by running a red-light because you were changing the A/C in your car, am I at fault? If I've had 4-5 beers and you decide to change lanes (while sober) and trying to redial your fuckbuddy without looking...well, who is at fault?

Please define "drunk". Should my 98 yo aunt, who has never had a sip of beer, be able to drive?Shouldn't it be based on behavior? I know I wouldn't let someone with your limited mental capacity drive! Shouldn't BEHAVIOR (swerving, endangering others, etc.) define who should be able to drive?

You are saying that something arbitrary (BAC) or unquantifiable (opiate/THC intoxication) should give YOU the ability to do stupid shit (texting while driving, or changing radio stations, or talking to your passenger, or eating your McDs fastfuckingfood) is applicable to someone exposing the fact that our government is MURDERING CHILDREN!

See what I did there? I said something that can be PROVEN (the murder of children by the government) while you POSTULATED something that cannot be proved, and is too stupid for people to think about.

So, R99- do you pen your body, or does some indistinguishable "OTHER" own your body? And if that "OTHER" owns your body, are you responsible for your actions? If so, how can you ever send anyone to prison (like Brad/Chelsea Manning) without admitting that SOMEONE is responsible for their actions.

I hope this isn't too complex for your simple mind to grasp- I really, REALLY look forward to your reply.

by Anonymousreply 10108/24/2013

Where the fuck did all these crazy people come from?

by Anonymousreply 10208/24/2013

R102

I have no idea. These government whores are EVERYWHERE!

Anyone who believes the bullshit our government propaganda outlets (HuffPo, ABCNNBCFox, etc.) spew is too stupid to breathe.

by Anonymousreply 10308/24/2013

Still waiting for an explanation of why we don't own our bodies...

by Anonymousreply 10408/24/2013

[quote]The idea that we're living in some kind of police state or that democracy is under threat because government agencies can access the metadata of individuals who are suspected of committing crimes that are actually of danger to the public is bullshit.

You're the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

by Anonymousreply 10508/24/2013

R105-

Exactly.

The morons that can't see the dangers of unlimited, nigh omnipotent government that has no legal bounds, no limits, and cannot be held accountable for their crimes...they are just like the average person living in Germany or Austria in the late 30s.

by Anonymousreply 10608/25/2013

@R106

That should read "I'm still waiting for someone to explain why we don't own our bodies"

by Anonymousreply 10708/25/2013

Still waiting...

Come on and explain how you don't own your body.

by Anonymousreply 10808/26/2013

Greenwald is a dramaqueen

by Anonymousreply 10908/26/2013

TLT (tedious libertarian troll) has a really, really clever answer to his own question- won't someone puhleeeze ask him about the owning the body thing?

by Anonymousreply 11008/26/2013

[quote]Come on and explain how you don't own your body.

LOL.... I just love it when you think you've finally found a "gotcha" question that nobody can deal with. And then you obsess about it over and over and over and over and over and over again until you find a new question and start the process all over again, never once understanding why everyone is laughing at you and why nobody will play your silly games.

Man, I'd have loved to see what you were like on the playground as a child!

by Anonymousreply 11108/26/2013

[quote]Come on and explain how you don't own your body.

While we're discussing "owning your own body",k please explain the Libertarian position on abortion rights. And how Ron & Rand Paul's aggressive attacks on abortion fit into their libertarian worldview.

TIA!

by Anonymousreply 11208/26/2013

A look at how the government tried to destroy anyone helping Snowden--

by Anonymousreply 11310/03/2013

R111-

Still waiting...

by Anonymousreply 11410/03/2013

From R113-

------

The U.S. government in July obtained a search warrant demanding that Edward Snowden’s e-mail provider, Lavabit, turn over the private SSL keys that protected all web traffic to the site, according to to newly unsealed documents.

The July 16 order came after Texas-based Lavabit refused to circumvent its own security systems to comply with earlier orders intended to monitor a particular Lavabit user’s metadata, defined as “information about each communication sent or received by the account, including the date and time of the communication, the method of communication, and the source and destination of the communication.”

The name of the target is redacted from the unsealed records, but the offenses under investigation are listed as violations of the Espionage Act and theft of government property — the exact charges that have been filed against NSA whistleblower Snowden in the same Virginia court.

The records in the case, which is now being argued at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, were unsealed today by a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia. They confirm much of what had been suspected about the conflict between the pro-privacy e-mail company and the federal government, which led to Lavabit voluntarily closing in August rather than compromise the security it promised users.

The filings show that Lavabit was served on June 28 with a so-called “pen register” order requiring it to record, and provide the government with, the e-mail “from” and “to” lines on every e-mail, as well as the IP address used to access the mailbox. Because they provide only metadata, pen register orders can be obtained without “probable cause” that the target has committed a crime.

by Anonymousreply 11510/03/2013

R116-

I love these posts!

It exposes your ignorance and cowardice for the rest to see.

Since you can't defend the widespread and illegal government spying, you launch ad hominem attacks.

#weaksauce times 1Quadrillion!

Thank GOD most DLrs have seen through your lying bullshit!

by Anonymousreply 11710/03/2013

One more time for Lew Rockwell!

Waitress: Morning!

Man: Well, what've you got?

Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...

Waitress: ...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...

Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!

Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

Wife: Have you got anything without spam?

Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY spam!

Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?

Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?

Waitress: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like spam!

Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Waitress: Shut up!

Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.

Wife: I don't like spam!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.

Man: Well could I have her spam instead of the baked beans then?

Waitress: You mean spam spam spam spam spam spam... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam!

by Anonymousreply 11810/03/2013

R106, I don't think you realise how stupid you sound.

Sure, the US today is just like Germany in the 1930s. The US today is more like the US in... 2013: ideological government haters screaming against everything the government does, living in a fantasy world where they are heroes against some big scary state monster out to crush them. The line between you and the tea partiers is very, very thin.

R117, I thought there was actually a fuzzy area about the legality of NSA activities. As in, it's not universally accepted by all legal scholars that it was illegal and many argue it was in fact within the bounds of legality. Besides, what Snowden did was even more clearly illegal, so it's not as though you care about the law.

Anyway, it's obvious to all what Snowden's real principles are about (or, how stupid he is), even though I'm sure his followers will still defend him - he runs off to the wonderfully open and transparent Russia to be saved, where he disappears completely from the public eye.

So, Snowden fans, where is he? Why don't we hear from him anymore? I thought he had so much to say!

by Anonymousreply 11910/03/2013

R119-

I thought they put all of you people away after Nuremburg?

You (and your kind) should have spent life in jail. How can you post here from prison?

by Anonymousreply 12010/03/2013

So, R120: the NSA spying on Americans is just like gassing six millions Jews? NSA has the blood of millions on their hands?

Meanwhile, your pathetic Libertarian ass vocally supports Assad, a real life fascist dictator who gasses his own people? (yes, Assad gassed those people. Don't get started on tinhat conspiracy theories put forth by that prominent voice of human rights Vladimir Putin)

You might possibly understand why your funhouse view of the world doesn't begin to resemble objective reality?

by Anonymousreply 12110/04/2013

R121-

You're pathetic.

I never voiced support for Assad. The fact that you have to make up bullshit shows how mentally limited you are.

If the Nazi government had a system like Bush and Obama have implemented via the NSA, all the German Jews would be dead. Do you think that this spy system will disappear in 2016 or 2020 or 2024 when some "big bad Republican" gets elected and decides to use it against "dissidents"? No, this system will further metastasize and get worse.

Oh, and didn't you hear- Assad didn't use the gas- it was Al Quada rebels (financed by the USA) that were smuggling the poison gas and accidentally released it. Wait, you didn't see that on Fox News? You mean the US media didn't tell that part of the story?

Pathetic, sycophantic, moronic subhuman assholes like you are the reason George Bush gets elected- you are too stupid to see how stupid you are.

by Anonymousreply 12210/05/2013

[quote]The fact that you have to make up bullshit shows how mentally limited you are

LOL... Oh, the irony, coming from this moron.

by Anonymousreply 12310/05/2013

R123-

The fact that you post

[quote]LOL... Oh, the irony, coming from this moron.

while refusing to actually point out any issue, even one, shows how cowardly and ignorant you are.

C'mon - just one point, focus on one issue where I'm wrong.

Thank God most people aren't as willfully stupid- the "average joe" is starting to understand that the US Government is supplying weapons, training and money to Al Qaeda in Syria; that the "chemical weapons" were supplied by the US; that Assad and Syria pose ZERO threat to the US and is none of our business...well, normal, intelligent people get the idea.

It's sad that your head is too far up your ass to see the light.

People like you, morons that blindly believe any bullshit the government spews (well, as long as that government is headed by a Democrat) make me smile--- your gullibility and ignorance is so obvious to most people that they just laugh at you and your blind fealty to your "Beloved Leader".

If Obama took a shit on the US Constitution (literally, not the way he and Bush have done figuratively) you are so stupid and brainwashed you would defend him!

by Anonymousreply 12410/06/2013

So how's saving the world by spamming a gay message board in the middle of the night working out for you?

by Anonymousreply 12510/06/2013

Pretty good, R125!

Hubby is sleeping, got all day tomorrow to play around before we head to Florida on Monday...life's sweet!

by Anonymousreply 12610/06/2013

And do you think you're reaching your goal of making America a better place by posting here?

by Anonymousreply 12710/06/2013

[quote]while refusing to actually point out any issue, even one, shows how cowardly and ignorant you are.

Moron, I've pointed out where you're wrong dozens of times in the past and pointed out where you've made shit up about me a similar amount of times. And each time, you've responded with the usual evasions and insults.

[quote]C'mon - just one point, focus on one issue where I'm wrong.

LOL.... Oh, where to choose.... Gold prices, interest rates, hyperinflation, the current state of the economy, literally everything you've written about me, everything you've written about Paul Krugman, everything you've written about Keynesian economics, everything you've written about history.... In fact, I'm hard-pressed to find a single statement of yours that's correct!

[quote]People like you, morons that blindly believe any bullshit the government spews

Q.E.D. Thank you for proving my point for me, moron, since you are wholly unable to find even a single quote of mine that even remotely resembles that.

[quote]If Obama took a shit on the US Constitution (literally, not the way he and Bush have done figuratively) you are so stupid and brainwashed you would defend him!

And, again, Q.E.D. Thank you for making my case. The fact that you have to make up bullshit shows how mentally limited you are.

by Anonymousreply 12810/07/2013

The more Snowden releases, the worse it gets.

Our socialist/fascist government (aka surveillance state would make the Stasi and KGB shit their pants.) needs to be dismantled. NOW.

Anyone who can't see the evil of allowing the government unlimited powers is a fool.

by Anonymousreply 12912/21/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.