Glenn Greenwald NSA rebuttals


 * Blog rebuttal topics

Miranda being detained
Miranda was legally detained under &#60;u>&#60;a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7 Terrorism Act 2000 - Schedule 7">Schedule 7&#60;/a>&#60;/u> because he was suspected of engaging in the commission, preparation or instigation seriously disrupt an electronic system (i.e. NSA and/or UK counterpart surveillance systems).

Even then, under Section 7, the UK government &#60;u>&#60;a href="http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1">does not require&#60;/a>&#60;/u> prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism.

Greenwald admits Miranda was a mule
"Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, &#60;b>Mr. Greenwald said&#60;/b>. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, &#60;b>Mr. Greenwald said&#60;/b>. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, &#60;b>Mr. Greenwald said&#60;/b>."

— &#60;u>&#60;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0">New York Times&#60;/a>&#60;/u>

---

Miranda was legally detained under Schedule 7 because he suspected of engaging in the commission, preparation or instigation seriously disrupt an electronic system (i.e. NSA and/or UK counterpart surveillance systems). How, for the following under Schedule 7:

Looking under Schedule 7 gives us this:

&#60;blockquote>&#60;u>&#60;a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7">Terrorism Act 2000 - Schedule 7&#60;/a>&#60;/u>

2 Power to stop, question and detain


 * (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).


 * (2) This paragraph applies to a person if—


 * (a) he is at a port or in the border area, and


 * (b) the examining officer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland.


 * (3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).


 * (4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for &#60;b>suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)&#60;/b>.

&#60;/blockquote>

Looking under Section 40 gives us this:

&#60;blockquote>&#60;u>&#60;a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/V/crossheading/suspected-terrorists"> Terrorism Act 2000 - Part V -Section 40&#60;/a>&#60;/u>

40 Terrorist: interpretation.


 * (1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—


 * (a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or


 * (b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.


 * (2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the &#60;b>meaning given by section 1&#60;/b>.

&#60;/blockquote>

Looking under Section 1 gives us this:

&#60;blockquote>&#60;u>&#60;a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1"> Terrorism Act 2000 - Part I -Section 1&#60;/a>&#60;/u>

Terrorism: interpretation.


 * (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—


 * (a) the action falls within subsection (2),


 * (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and


 * (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.


 * (2) Action falls within this subsection if it—


 * (a) involves serious violence against a person,


 * (b) involves serious damage to property,


 * (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,


 * (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or


 * &#60;b>(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.&#60;/b>

&#60;/blockquote>

Unlike most other police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism.

http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1

Greenwald now a low-level extortionist
So Pat, let me get this straight, I am a police state apologist for thinking that Greenwald, aside from being a hypocritical hack who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq, has pushed a false narrative about the stolen and leaked Snowden documents which, most of what was claimed about them is misleading at best, particularly in light of the fact that metadata collected by a third part (i.e. the telecoms) has never been held as being protected under the 4th from a court order even without showing probable cause, has just blown any pretenses of being a legitimate 'journalist' out of the water?

Greenwald has now stated he is going to release all kinds of stuff about the U.K. because you not because he really interested in what ever he is now claiming is seriously damaging stuff because it is wrong of the inherent wrongs of whatever personal or civil liberties issues they may entail. If that were the case, why would he be withholding stuff? Wouldn't it be his duty as a "journalist" to release all this nefarious stuff he claimed he has on the U.K. gov. anyway?

If he's now going to release stuff in order to hurt the U.K. because they caught his spouse acting a data-mule, that just makes him of a low-level extortionist.

Greenwald hypocrite

 * Glenn Greenwald Iraq war rebuttals


 * Blog rebuttal topics