Spokesman says U.S. was tipped off that man would be detained
The way the Guardian keeps pacing its release of leaked documents piecemeal says
to me that its priority is to strategically drag out the story to keep milking
it for all it’s worth. How will they keep it going if the public starts to
tire of it in time? Have they thought of that? I’ll bet they have. Public
watchdog, my eye.
New meaning of Miranda Rights.
Or is that Miranda Writes.
waiting for obama to take credit for this one too......bid laden dead, detroit
dead and snowden alive
Reason that violating rights of freedom is in our Constitution to forbidding
illegal search and seizure, out of nothing they have created a baseless incident
to ridicule and detain and intimidate a person rights.No, this
terrorist laws are being used to harass citizens and innocent people with
threats, lies, and accusation to further the cause of governement oppression as
a perceived right.Until the Patriot Act and homeland security laws
are repealed this country and the world will never be at peace. Shut down NSA,
CIA, and all governemnt operations of war in foreign countrysides then maybe the
world will become peaceful again.This country rights and civil
authority is limited to our borders. NAFTA Treaty must also be repealed if the
US has any intention of prosperity and growth and economic stability.
Snowden is a treasonous traitor to his country. And he knows it. That's the
reason he has tried so hard to find asylum in any other country he can. Before
having access to secret and sensitive government documents, he signed papers
promising not to disclose such things. He's proven himself someone who
can't be trusted since his personal and legal promises obviously mean
nothing. The last thing he should be considered is a hero. He is definitely not.
I would never, ever hire such a person to work for my company.By
association, the reporter who was in collusion with Snowden in leaking the
documents should expect some repercussions via surveillance from associated
governments. That would naturally extend to his personal partner. The British
are a very close ally of the U.S. and as such, are just trying to cooperate with
us in the ongoing investigation. No government respects any
individual who will turn on his own country. And it wasn't like anyone was
tortured or anything remotely similar. This individual's detainment was
just for hours... not days. This is obviously being made a bigger issue than it
@Tators --"And it wasn't like anyone was tortured or
anything remotely similar."Is that our criterion for respecting
personal rights now? "Well at least he wasn't tortured"??I understand why the US and the UK are both angry with these people. But I do
NOT understand how Miranda could remotely be considered a terrorist threat.This is a great example of how governments overstep their authority
whenever 1. they feel like it and 2. they think they can get away with it.It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
@Contrarius:Miranda isn't considered a terrorist threat. As
such, this isn't really a great example of any of your authority
assertions. I do agree that the play-out will be interesting.@
My2Cents:It seems you must know next to nothing about how Al Quite,
Al Fatah and other extremist enemy groups operate. If our government was to shut
down foreign NSA, CIA and other surveillance operations of such groups, the last
thing we could expect is for the world to become more peaceful... as you
asserted. Terrorism would soon rise to unprecedented levels around
much of the world. A primary means for keeping such groups in check is the high
level surveillance that our government uses on them... and then working in
conjunction with our and other ally militaries to counter their terrorism
attacks. By doing so, many (though obviously not all) would-be attacks have
undoubtedly been thwarted around the world. Such surveillance has also
allowed the use of drone attacks on high level operatives and organizers in
those terror organizations, thus again thwarting them.Anyone who
can't understand this security issue and it's direct ramifications has
been living in another world altogether.
@ Contrarius:In no way did I assert setting any criteria for
establishing or respecting any personal rights in this case. But when
individuals collude in treasonous activities, they should expect having to give
up some level of personal rights. The reporter involved was colluding with
Snowden. And as the legal partner of the reporter, his direct association thus
makes him also suspect of possibly having illegal and sensitive government
information. And please quit bending and misquoting my statements to
fit your agenda. By doing so, you skew statements out of context in attempting
to make your arguments look better than they are. You put quotation marks on
"Well at least he wasn't tortured" as if that was an accurate and
direct quote of mine. It wasn't. My actual quote was "It wasn't
like anyone was tortured or anything remotely similar." And my actual quote
wasn't made in the context you are trying to assert. By doing such things,
your argument quickly loses credence and legitimacy.
@Tators --"Miranda isn't considered a terrorist
threat."If he wasn't considered a terrorist threat, then
his detention was illegal. The law he was detained under was specifically
intended to cover TERRORIST suspects only."But when individuals
collude in treasonous activities"So what happened to
"innocent until proven guilty"? And the guy who was detained
isn't even an American OR British citizen. Howintheheck are his activities
supposed to be treasonous to Brazil??"And please quit bending
and misquoting my statements to fit your agenda."Your exact
words -- which I quoted -- were "And it wasn't like anyone was tortured
or anything remotely similar."That's a clear excusal of the
illegal detention. I'm sorry if you didn't think through the
implications of your words before you posted them.
@ Contrarius:Yes, you should be a bit sorry. But not for your stated
reason. I've thought through my reasoning and am still comfortable with it.
I'm just sorry I'm apparently incapable of getting you to understand
your own slightly off-kilter reasoning. Some of it sounds fairly good, but still
doesn't hold up overall. It's that part that I'm sorry about...
that we have a reasoning communication gap. You are misconstruing much of this
case within it's intended context (it's truly not a clear excusal)
that I just don't have the time nor space to try explaining it to you any
further. Maybe next time. I do like the fact that at least you're trying.
Most people don't.Also, check your previous post. You
supposedly quoted me twice. Once correctly. Once not.
Tators - aren't ALL traitors, by definition, "treasonous"?
@Tators --"I've thought through my reasoning and am still
comfortable with it. "Yet we still have an illegal detention --
you yourself said he wasn't considered a terrorist threat -- of a man who
has committed no treason. He isn't even a citizen of the countries affected
by Snowden. How do you excuse the illegal detention?"You
supposedly quoted me twice. Once correctly. Once not."I
wasn't quoting you, I was stating the principle implied in your quote. I
would have used italics if they had been available to me, but they were not. We
make do with what we have.
Thank Heaven for Edward Snowden. He is a hero. How would we ever know the
extent to which our own government could spy on us if it were not for him?