Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Aug 2013 14:05 UTC

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 8.05am 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.

Miranda also had all his equipment confiscated. He has done nothing wrong - there's no charges, no criminal suspicion, nothing at all. His only crime is being the partner of a famous journalist who, among other things, is one of the driving forces behind shining a light on the NSA's mass surveillance.

There is no war on terror, because the terrorists have already won.

Thread beginning with comment 570134
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Excuses
by Tuishimi on Tue 20th Aug 2013 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excuses"
Member since:

For what it is worth, morality has to be objective or it is worthless.

And Rome went through many iterations of government. Started out in a rather reasonable and positive fashion.

Edited 2013-08-20 05:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Excuses
by Kochise on Tue 20th Aug 2013 08:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Excuses"
Kochise Member since:

If you can read french, here's a recent article on the French version of Prism :

En réalité, « aux Etats-Unis, la lutte contre le terrorisme est un leurre, décrypte Franck Decloquement, chercheur à l’Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques.

Environ 80 % de leur activité dans ce domaine n’a qu’un objectif : le renseignement économique. Pourquoi mettraient-ils autant d’argent dans ces systèmes ? Uniquement pour déjouer d’éventuels attentats ? Non, bien sûr.

Mais pour savoir, par exemple, si Airbus est mieux placé que Boeing pour un contrat. Nous bricolons du renseignement économique, alors que les Américains l’ont industrialisé »

That means :

In fact, "in the United States, the fight against terrorism is a decoy, decrypts Decloquement Franck, a researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations.

Approximately 80% of their activity in this area has only one objective: economic intelligence. Why would it take so much money in these systems? Only to thwart possible attacks? No, of course.

But to know, for example, if Airbus is better placed than Boeing for a contract. We are tinkering economic intelligence, while the Americans have developed it to an industrial scale"


Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Excuses
by zima on Mon 26th Aug 2013 21:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Excuses"
zima Member since:

For what it is worth, morality has to be objective or it is worthless.

Then you're saying it's worthless... (because it's certainly not objective; one quick example - many people living in Indian subcontinent would be terrified how you can eat cow burgers)

Reply Parent Score: 2