53 2 mins 8 yrs

You might have seen that Glenn Greenwald’s boyfriend was abducted and robbed by uniformed goons at Heathrow Airport yesterday. They have a piece of paper called the “Terrorism Act 2000”, which they think is justification. His boyfriend was held for nine hours, during which his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles were stolen.

Since it’s Greenwald who is the journalist who has done such wonderful work to bring us the Snowden revelations among other things, it’s not clear what the goons hoped to gain from taking all those items from his boyfriend. Apart from compromising photos, say. Greenwald is far too smart to leave anything on such devices which governments would want to see. Anyway, he’s a fighter. He’s not easily intimidated and he’s coming out swinging.

Speaking to reporters at Rio de Janeiro’s airport, Mr Greenwald said Britain will be “sorry” for detaining his partner for nine hours.

Mr Greenwald said: “I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents.

“I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England’s spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.”

Front row seats and a mega-bucket of popcorn please. Some might regard his intentions as being “anti-British”. Some Americans would regard them as being anti-American if the threat was directed that way. This is nonsense of course. He’s aiming right at the regime which targeted his boyfriend as a means of getting to him. There’s not the slightest anti-British feeling about it. I wish him the best of luck. Make the details juicy. Make them sweat.

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

53 thoughts on “GLENN GREENWALD: “UK WILL BE SORRY”

  1. I bet that’s the first time in your life you’ve written that with a straight face.

    Strange politics makes strange bedfellows.

  2. I wouldn’t say my face was straight.

    In fact the press is describing him as Greenwald’s “partner”, and I’ve always found that description to be preposterous. It’s so daft that I’d rather type his boyfriend.

  3. Sad thing is the government and status quo powers seem to think Greenwald, the Tea Party and any other non conforming group is more of a terrorist threat than radical islam.

    I am so sick of government bullying and bureaucratic bullying, just because they can. Go get ’em, Greenwald.

  4. “UK WILL BE SORRY”

    They have a piece of paper called the “Terrorism Act 2000″, which they think is justification.

    We are all going to be sorry.

  5. UPDATE – Glenn Greenwald: detaining my partner was a failed attempt at intimidation

    The detention of my partner, David Miranda, by UK authorities will have the opposite effect of the one intended

    Two things are interesting here. The first is that Miranda was held for nine hours and denied access to a lawyer for that time. The second is this:

    “The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used “to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.”

    But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop “the terrorists”, and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name.”

    The idea of the Terrorist Act 2000, as many said at the time, was simply to empower the State over the people even more. All of these acts are designed specifically for that purpose. Terror never has anything to do with it. Time and time again we’ve seen that proven. Greenwald signs off:

    David was unable to call me because his phone and laptop are now with UK authorities. So I don’t yet know what they told him. But the Guardian’s lawyer was able to speak with him immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant, and he asked the lawyer to convey that defiance to me. I already share it, as I’m certain US and UK authorities will soon see.

  6. There is less chance of being ‘Bombed’ now than in the 1970’s, there was no ‘terrorism act’ then, so why now?

    It is a catch-all tool for big government to use as it sees fit on anyone.

    Look what they’ve done to Assange.

    Who is ‘They’ ?

  7. You’re in the back of beyond, so you won’t be bombed by anyone. The bad guys couldn’t find you.

    London and other places in the UK have been relatively safe in the days since 7/7 only due to some very hard work by your spooks, cops, military, and by ours, and by those of other lands.

    Stand up in front of your computer monitor and thank them, right now, if you would.

  8. Petr Tarasov, on August 19th, 2013 at 9:29 PM Said:
    I don’t answer to you you bigoted thug.

    Oh shut the fuck up you UAF moron

  9. Petr Tarasov, on August 19th, 2013 at 9:29 PM Said:
    I don’t answer to you you bigoted thug.

    And so says Tarasov aged 11 and a half, going on 12 😉

    Tarsov, you really are a weapons grade arsehole.

  10. Quite obviously the authorities had no suspicion this guy was a potential terrorist – it was obviously just a ruse to obtain his phone/laptop etc. to search for anything they could use in their ‘battle’ with his journalist partner. It was an illegal stop but nothing will be done to discipline those who stopped him.

  11. MI5 goons overstepping the mark, clearly a crude attempt at intimidation. They were probably tipped off from Berlin and of course they advised Uncle Sam what they were up to.

  12. // it was obviously just a ruse to obtain his phone/laptop etc. to search for anything they could use in their ‘battle’ with his journalist partner. //

    Right. This was a flagrant abuse of anti-terrorism law.

    Good to see Greenwald in such fighting form. Ironically he – an American and trained in law – entered the political fray with writings about the dangers of such legislation being abused.
    Every country, not least his homeland, needs someone like Greenwald.

  13. Pete Moore supportive of the South American boyfriend of a Jewish journalist.

    Paging the Four Horsemen….

  14. Actually, Miranda is Greenwald’s spouse and they both reside in Brazil.

    Nice to know what to expect if one exposes a government’s underbelly.

    I find it odd that so many people are obsessed with the tiny fraction of muslim terrorist incidents when they have much more reason to fear the broader post 9/11 actions of their own governments.

  15. Tiny fraction of Muslim terrorists incidents. Interesting phrase considering the vicious daily incidents of Radical Islamic terror that occur all over this planet. Luckily, we’ve been able to avoid having as many attacks as the Radical Islamists would like us to have had.

    One can and should be critical of Western excesses, misjudgments, negligence, illegality and policy decisions that are plain wrong. But pretending that Western missteps are remotely akin to the real threat of radical Islam is like pretending that blacklisting Pete Seeger or Paul Robsen was equal to Stalin’s purges.

  16. How many Muslim terror acts would we have in London / NYC / the West if we were not monitoring them?

  17. what’s sad os all of you who do not see what the real issue is or the dangers here.

    Governments spy on people, they have to. Including their own people. It has been that way forever and it will always be that way. If they don’t use the information against innocent people then it’s not a problem.

    The peoples job is to maintain the ability to force misuse of the data to be persecuted, not allow a free pass because it’s one or the other party that misused the data.

    The statements by Greenwald prove one thing beyond a doubt. Snowden is a traitor, he is a traitor aided and abetted by Greenwald. An American Whistle Blower goes to congress. What they do in Britain I don’t know or care, I’m sure it is similar.

    A Traitor flees to a foreign nation with the data and exposes details to the enemy, which Snowden has done.

    Greenwald has just threatened the lives of British citizens. He is in possession of information that will get people killed, and has threatened to use it, and you people think these clowns are Noble ?

    Greenwald and his Newspaper publisher should be arrested, persecuted, and prosecuted.

    They just threatened the lives of you and your family.

  18. “Governments spy on people, they have to. Including their own people.”

    There’s the voice of American liberty: people belong to the government, they have no right to privacy, what belongs to them belongs to the State.

    “Greenwald has just threatened the lives of British citizens.”

    Quite clearly this is not true. Why do American conservatives and GOPers always wet themselves in fear and run about like their hair’s on fire at every little thing?

  19. Troll

    As far as I know Greenwald was simply investigating and reporting if government agencies were acting outside the law or abusing their powers. Surely it is perfectly valid indeed essential and healthy journalistic behaviour.

  20. when you state that you have information about a nations intelligence network and you say back off or I’ll use it, that is a threat. I can’t help it if that concept is beyond your grasp.

    and No the Government belongs to the people, they better be spying on everyone. It is the job of the people usually through the press, but they don’t exist anymore, but also through our elected representatives to control that that information is not used in a malicious manner.

  21. Troll –

    “when you state that you have information about a nations intelligence network and you say back off or I’ll use it, that is a threat.”

    Yes, to the intelligence network, not to the lives of the people.

    And there is no such thing as “a nation’s” network. It’s the Power Elite’s network and it’s aimed at bullying, intimidating and controlling you.

  22. Pete
    So your saying the lives of people that work for the intelligence community aren’t worth anything, and that if people plant bombs or any type of attack and all sorts of people start to die your not going to ask why the government did nothing to prevent it?

    people like you, scare me.

  23. Troll –

    What are you on about, you hysterical drama queen?

    Putting aside that 7/7 and Boston happened despite the spy agencies working at ramming spped, Greenwald is not going to do anything to stymie their attempts to prevent Abdul Kaboom from doing his dastardly deeds. If the NSA/GCHQ nexus is spying on me I want to know it and I have every damned right to know it.

    Serious question now: when did American conservatism support the Surveillance State spying on everyone with impunity?

    In fact, why don’t you post about it. I really am interested. I really would like to know how small-gummint, don’t-tread-on-me patriots turned into Surveillance State cheerleaders, why it happened, how they reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions and what, if any, privacy is now allowed to citizens in the Land of the Free.

  24. There is a nation’s network

    I used to work for it.

    It is necessary and good, and it is widely supported.

  25. Luckily, we’ve been able to avoid having as many attacks as the Radical Islamists would like us to have had.

    We only have the word of those that lie to governments and arrest family members of journalists who bring transparency to their deeds. I mean how much more evidence do you need that these measures have little to do with 2 dozen scary guys in caves and much to do with western states protecting themselves against their own citizens (who are slowly becoming more aware that a silent coup has been rolled out over the last decade or so).

    But pretending that Western missteps are remotely akin to the real threat of radical Islam is like pretending that blacklisting Pete Seeger or Paul Robsen was equal to Stalin’s purges.

    Ahhh the good old American ‘liberal’. Just as insane as your average tea party member. Such a frightened nation wielding such power is the real danger this planet faces today.

    How many Muslim terror acts would we have in London / NYC / the West if we were not monitoring them?

    Who knows, i mean the NSA just listened in on an Al Queda conference call and still only managed to suggest that they “could” be planning to hit targets? With no evidence whatsoever I can make an identical claim and be confident that i am just as right. Infact if i set myself up as an independent intelligence analyst and offered to say so on TV i would likely be given air time.

    That aside, im guessing it would automatically be much less if the west stopped its remote controlled terrorism from the skies. And that may stop if large swathes of the public stopped supporting such terrorism, Phantom.

  26. This isn’t a precise field.

    And the greatest accomplishments of the spooks, cops and military will often never be known.

    We’re not interested in reacting to the next event, we are interested in preventing it.

    What are you interested in doing?

  27. Daytripper – It is absolute bollocks to pretend the threat of radical Islamists is confined to a couple dozen people in caves. Thousands have died at their hands across the Globe.

    There is a species in the West that has long grossly discounted or praised its enemies while bemoaning and hyperventilating over its own interests. Thou art among said species.

  28. If they don’t use the information against innocent people then it’s not a problem.

    Sounds wonderful, but who decides what innocent looks like?

    P.S. To save you a trip to Conservapedia I think David Miranda has the answer.

    We’re not interested in reacting to the next event, we are interested in preventing it.

    You are not interested in that at all. If you were you would not support the use of terrorism as a means to prevent terrorism. If you really wanted to prevent attacks you would look for root causes and not simply attack the symptoms.

  29. A group is going to plant a bomb in a shopping mall. We could try surveillance on the group, intercept its communications and endeavor to trace its funds and contacts.

    Or we could see if they are upset because Muslim hordes were unsuccessful in the siege of Vienna hundreds of years ago.

  30. Mahons

    //But pretending that Western missteps are remotely akin to the real threat of radical Islam is like //

    That’s misrepresenting what Daphne said (“I find it odd that so many people are obsessed with the tiny fraction of muslim terrorist incidents when they have much more reason to fear the broader post 9/11 actions of their own governments.”)

    Just because you fear one thing over another, doesn’t mean you think it would be a worst calamity. Likelihood of the contingency affecting you is generally also taken into consideration – e.g. most people fear their boss’ wrath more than being struck by lightning. It’s a similar case here.

    Daphne is saying – and she’ll correct me if I’m wrong – that there is only a very remote likelihood for an American, or someone in Britain, of falling victim to a terrorist attack, and that the risk of being affected by the surveillance overkill of some paranoid govt agencies is greater.

    While those govt. agencies certainly have lessened the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the past few years, they have now clearly got too big for their boots (or perhaps sneakers?) . The NSA has taken liberties with citizens of European states that are forbidden even for their own governments. And now we have British intelligence using anti-terrorism law to get back at a journalist for embarrassing the British and the US government, and they do so by intimidating his partner.
    That’s pathetic.

    No government has a right not to be embarrassed. Governments, and especially spooks agencies, have a tendency to serve their own interests after a while. That’s the beginning of despotism, and anyone who exposes and fights it deserves our support.

  31. The bad guys have not reformed.

    The reason that there is a remote likelihood of a terrorist attack is due to good shoe leather work from US / UK / French / German / Israeli spooks, cops and military.

    Thank them very much, with all your heart and with all sincerity, regardless of what country you are in.

  32. No need for correction, Noel – well said.

    Phantom the likelihood of islamic terrorists attacks on US or UK soil was quite remote prior to 9/11 too.

    What can we chalk that up to?

  33. It can be chalked up to the same reasons that I gave before – good and substantially unappreciated work by spooks, cops and military. Most threats were not and will not be made public, or if they are, they aren’t all front page news.

    These guys don’t think in terms of five minute increments like the average texting and TV watching American or British does these days. They think in terms of centuries. Their timeframe is very different.

    The building complex I worked in was the subject of two major attacks in an eight year period. The threat has not been remote to me. It is personal – as it should be to any US or British person, esp. those who live in NY or London.

    I’

  34. Phantom –

    The idea that the Surveillance State is collecting every bit of information on everyone, every keystroke and every communication, in order to catch terrorists is asinine.

    But you know that. You’re just regurgitating the memos here.

    Now what building are you referring to, the which was attacked twice in eight years?

  35. The World Trade Center was the subject of two major attacks. In February 1993 and in September 2001.

    See what I mean? How soon we forget.

  36. Not forgetting, just checking. I didn’t want to cook your goose only to be handed a chicken.

    The 1993 bombing was known well in advance by the FBI because of an informant, not wiretapping.

    Let me repeat: The FBI knew all about the plot. It chose to do nothing. What use is mass State Surveillance when the State allows bombings to happen?

    Oh, and don’t suggest for a moment I’m off on some conspiracy theory. Let Dan Rather tell you about how the FBI knew of the plot. He’s a proper journalist. Needless to say, all the juicy details of FBI incompetence and corruption are out there.

    I won’t also list the very many plots which were instigated by the FBI. I’d be here all night. In fact so many are instigated by the FBI that one author estimated just one per cent of “terrorists” are actually real.

    You shouldn’t thank the FBI, you should be asking them to stop plotting bomb attacks.

    We’re reminded that the Tsarnaevs were known by the FBI for some years. The track record suggests some recruitment programme. But even when the Russians warned the CIA about the older brother nothing was done. What’s the point of mass State Surveillance when the spooks and badged agents are so useless?

    Yeah, how easy we forget Phantom, old son. And that’s what the feds are counting on, everyone forgetting that they instigated almost all the plots in the US.

  37. Dan Rather’s career ended in disgrace when he, with others, was caught up in an incident of journalistic fraud involving GW Bush’s National Guard records. I might recommend another source.

  38. “I really would like to know how small-gummint, don’t-tread-on-me patriots turned into Surveillance State cheerleaders, why it happened, how they reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions and what, if any, privacy is now allowed to citizens in the Land of the Free.”

    Agree, Pete.

  39. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing zero sum game. Of course good robust comprehensive and serious intelligence and security work is necessary and to be lauded, but this does not and shouldn’t mean blind trust that the intelligence powers will never abuse their role or that their claims should be unchallenged. Journalists and the media should in a healthy society investigate abuses of power from any source and shouldn’t automatically be regarded as the ‘enemy’ for doing so.

  40. That is an entirely valid point of view.

    All of good faith won’t agree on these matters, and some are cursed with the ability to see both sides.

  41. Daytripper – It is absolute bollocks to pretend the threat of radical Islamists is confined to a couple dozen people in caves. Thousands have died at their hands across the Globe.

    There are so few of them that they can listen to the conference calls of the top leaders (maybe Microsoft shared their outlook calendars), and still only get a vague notion that something ‘could’ happen. Yeah? Could it? No shit sherlock, gimme a suit and a title of private intel analyst and ill say that on TV with no evidence at all, and still be right. That anyone accepts such laughable nonsense at face value is beyond me, though its fair to say you are among the most frightened and propagandised people on earth so we should go a little easy on you guys.

    There is a species in the West that has long grossly discounted or praised its enemies while bemoaning and hyperventilating over its own interests. Thou art among said species

    If i go to hell for showing no fear to those who seek to destroy us while holding my own nation to the high standards it professes to stand for then so be it. You guys can enjoy the cesspit you advocate, just remember its the same moral slime that your enemies bathe in too.

    All of good faith won’t agree on these matters, and some are cursed with the ability to see both sides.

    Both sides? There are many sides. Not just yours or mine or Pattys or even trolls. Not for a second will you spare a thought for a family living beside “a high value target” who may or may not be there, may or may not be high value may or may not be planning to attack america and may or may not even be anti american at all. Not for a second will you spare a thought for the survivor or victim of such acts who with nothing more to lose and continued fear of remote execution may just become all of the above.

  42. Both sides? There are many sides. Not just yours or mine or Pattys or even trolls. Not for a second will you spare a thought for a family living beside “a high value target” who may or may not be there, may or may not be high value may or may not be planning to attack america and may or may not even be anti american at all. Not for a second will you spare a thought for the survivor or victim of such acts who with nothing more to lose and continued fear of remote execution may just become all of the above.

    You assume a great deal.

    Don’t fall off that moral high horse. You might get hurt.

  43. Actually as i pointed out previously most of that has already happened. Watch jeremy scahills talk on democracy now, available via youtube. He presents the facts on the whole drone/special forces strategy and its aftermath for the locals.

    And its easy to have morals that look high when the bar is set so low.

  44. The drone program has to be reined in…I was in DC last week and went to the Air & Space museum where they have a couple of drones…it was chilling to look at them…faceless and cold…a true killing machine up close and personal.

Comments are closed.