Amnesty International on the detention of Greenwald's partner(amnesty.org)
amnesty.org
Amnesty International on the detention of Greenwald's partner
https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-detention-guardian-employee-heathrow-unlawful-and-unwarranted-2013-08-18
49 comments
British law has problems. Among them is the breadth of the Terrorism Act. But I don't presume that this means that the UK declared this person a terrorist.
Who cares if they "declare" him a terrorist or not? They're using a law supposedly intended to help catch terrorists to punish someone who is very clearly not a terrorist.
Just playing devils advocate here: Greenwald did previously state that he was going to send leaked information to his partner. So his partner isn't just his "loved one" in this. He would be one of the leakers.
Moreover, his partner has a previous history of interest and involvement in his professional affairs.
One of the more hilarious examples: Miranda used to troll for blog posts that were critical of Greenwald and then argue with the bloggers, often posting the same comment (of fawning praise for Greenwald) to multiple blogs. When people realized the comments were coming from Greenwald's IP, it led to accusations of sock puppetry and lots of drama.
Point being, it's reasonable to expect that Miranda's involvement runs deeper than merely being in a relationship with Greenwald. Both past behavior and public comments suggest he might either be involved directly, or he's trying to appear to be involved. (There's a long history of activists inviting law enforcement responses; Rosa Parks didn't keep her seat just because she was tired.)
One of the more hilarious examples: Miranda used to troll for blog posts that were critical of Greenwald and then argue with the bloggers, often posting the same comment (of fawning praise for Greenwald) to multiple blogs. When people realized the comments were coming from Greenwald's IP, it led to accusations of sock puppetry and lots of drama.
Point being, it's reasonable to expect that Miranda's involvement runs deeper than merely being in a relationship with Greenwald. Both past behavior and public comments suggest he might either be involved directly, or he's trying to appear to be involved. (There's a long history of activists inviting law enforcement responses; Rosa Parks didn't keep her seat just because she was tired.)
Is there a citation for this? It's the first I've heard of it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s...
“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
He said he didn't send it but implied he wanted to so it's very reasonable to suspect he did later at some point.
“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
He said he didn't send it but implied he wanted to so it's very reasonable to suspect he did later at some point.
One more reason to suspect the media & equipment taken had nothing valuable on them. I'd assume after one direct hit against ones' person a more careful approach would be indicated. That's still an assumption but I really can't imagine anybody that has been the subject of a targeted theft like that to carry incriminating data on their person across a border.
Lightning doesn't strike twice? It would be silly for the police to have a dont search twice policy, because once such a policy is known, it provides an obvious loophole for people interested in concealing or smuggling items.
No, of course they'd do the search again. But that doesn't mean there was something to be found. Though the fact that he hand carried so many devices including thumb drives suggests that there is a real possibility that he was hand carrying bits. That leaves the question if those bits were valuable, encrypted and whether or not the decryption keys were on his person or kept on either side.
The data and the keys travelling together would be a pretty bad mistake, even knowing the keys would be a bad move.
The data and the keys travelling together would be a pretty bad mistake, even knowing the keys would be a bad move.
[deleted]
It's interesting to me that this release refers to Miranda as Greenwald's husband, when everywhere else I'd seen the term "partner" used (including by Greenwald himself). What's different here? The emphasis on the legal relation being used as a means to underscore the abuse? How might this be different if he was just his boyfriend?
I might be slow but until now I thought partner was being used as in business/work partner.
I think the ambiguity is intentional; it keeps the drama of gay marriage off of Greenwald so as to not distract from the message he's carrying. However, I think it's a little cheesy to pull out the term "husband" when it's emotionally advantageous to do so. Even if it was just a business partner, harassing Greenwald's close associates would be just as heinous without the need to stoop to emotional manipulation.
I hope the lib dems move for a no confidence vote. At least that could cause an election about these absurdities in west.
Cheers, best laugh I've had all day!!!!!!
Edit: Sorry, should explain. The Lib Dems are the minority junior partner in a coalition government. The idea they would move to kill of their only ever hope at power is a dream at best.
Edit: Sorry, should explain. The Lib Dems are the minority junior partner in a coalition government. The idea they would move to kill of their only ever hope at power is a dream at best.
They are also in the second half of the parliament and sooner or later will seek to find issues on which they can distinguish themselves from the Conservatives
It was the previous Labour government (now in opposition) that introduced all the anti-terror acts that have made this possible - this particular one in 2000 - and continually pushed for them to be made more illiberal.
Lib Dems can't and shouldn't move for no confidence in a government which has generally been able to defend liberal policies (admittedly not unanimously), and will continue to do so until 2015.
That action would just serve to endanger the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights - exactly the opposite of the stated goal.
Lib Dems can't and shouldn't move for no confidence in a government which has generally been able to defend liberal policies (admittedly not unanimously), and will continue to do so until 2015.
That action would just serve to endanger the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights - exactly the opposite of the stated goal.
[deleted]
While Amnesty is doing the right thing here, the organization shouldn't be supported as a whole. They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go to jail for politically incorrect opinions. Therefore they don't advocate for freedom of speech but rather opinions that fit their own world view.
1. http://www.jta.org/1999/08/05/news-opinion/amnesty-internati...
1. http://www.jta.org/1999/08/05/news-opinion/amnesty-internati...
> They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go to jail for politically incorrect opinions.
Holocaust denial is pretty clearly antithetical to their mission. Their decision that they "would exclude from prisoner of conscience status not only people who have used or advocated violence, but also people who are imprisoned ‘for having advocated national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.’" does not seem unreasonable.
To take the opposite position - to argue for the release of ALL political prisoners - would have resulted in some fairly absurd situations over the years which don't really need to be enumerated here, I would think.
Holocaust denial is pretty clearly antithetical to their mission. Their decision that they "would exclude from prisoner of conscience status not only people who have used or advocated violence, but also people who are imprisoned ‘for having advocated national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.’" does not seem unreasonable.
To take the opposite position - to argue for the release of ALL political prisoners - would have resulted in some fairly absurd situations over the years which don't really need to be enumerated here, I would think.
...interesting, as a German I'd find it more difficult to support Amnesty if they did defend the 'historian' (you don't just get to call yourself that). Amnesty does not support hate speech or calls for violence, and I'm totally okay with that.
That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but it's not very appropriate to call it compatible with freedom of speech.
The German constitution does not recognize freedom of speech; what it does recognize is freedom of political expression. There's a limit to this, though, when it is perceived to endanger public peace. Holocaust denial and suchlike has always been considered an assault on public peace. No public figure will be seen denying the holocaust or similar, the only purpose of that sort of statement can be to incite a mob. That's the background.
Now consider this: the German constitution was commissioned in 1948 by the Allied Powers, there was much experience in the Commission that developed it with constitutions of democratic nations, and the Nazi experience was fresh in everyone's mind. I think the fact that Germany does not have "freedom of speech" written in its constitution wants to tell you something.
TL;DR: Germany does not recognize freedom of speech. Germans consider this to be a Good Thing.
Now consider this: the German constitution was commissioned in 1948 by the Allied Powers, there was much experience in the Commission that developed it with constitutions of democratic nations, and the Nazi experience was fresh in everyone's mind. I think the fact that Germany does not have "freedom of speech" written in its constitution wants to tell you something.
TL;DR: Germany does not recognize freedom of speech. Germans consider this to be a Good Thing.
I think that it is. There are limits to speech everywhere, whether it is the prototypical "fire in a theater" example, or making threats. It is simply another in that category.
> compatible with freedom of speech
Which actually has little to do with prisoner of conscience status by itself. It's true enough that a prisoner of conscience has her freedom of speech violated in most cases. It doesn't follow that everyone whose freedom of speech is violated is a prisoner of conscience.
Which actually has little to do with prisoner of conscience status by itself. It's true enough that a prisoner of conscience has her freedom of speech violated in most cases. It doesn't follow that everyone whose freedom of speech is violated is a prisoner of conscience.
They have refused to support David Irving, who certainly deserves to be called a historian.
I don't claim to be an expect on Irving, but a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that he is an active Holocaust denier that an English court found "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." I'm sure there is more to his story, but to say that he "certainly deserves" to be called a historian is pretty simplistic.
He was a respected historian before his holocaust claims.
Amnesty International doesn't have enough funding to defend everyone; they need to allocate their scarce resources where they think they'll do the most good. Making Germany safe for holocaust revisionists probably isn't very high on that list.
Probably worth pointing out that the ACLU also operates with finite funding and has still famously defended the KKK on numerous occasions.
I think the real difference is different mission statements and cultural attitudes. Finite funding isn't the reason, it just simply isn't something they are interested in doing.
I think the real difference is different mission statements and cultural attitudes. Finite funding isn't the reason, it just simply isn't something they are interested in doing.
They haven't cited budget as their reason for refusing to defend politically incorrect historians. Making a Western country safe for all scientific opinions should be high on a list of their goals.
> politically incorrect historians.
In this case you can safely abbreviate this to "liars." Not everything is a matter of opinion.
> scientific opinions
WTF?
In this case you can safely abbreviate this to "liars." Not everything is a matter of opinion.
> scientific opinions
WTF?
Incitement to racism is not protected speech.
Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation and another time for inciting racism.
Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation and another time for inciting racism.
>Incitement to racism is not protected speech.
Holocaust denial is not racism.
>Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation
Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation.
>and another time for inciting racism.
A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion.
Holocaust denial is not racism.
>Wikipedia claims Mr Toben, who is not an accredited historian, was arrested once for defamation
Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation.
>and another time for inciting racism.
A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion.
>Holocaust denial is not racism.
You are welcome to read, as an example, the very first article of Mr Toben's most recent newsletter [1] in which he makes the case that jews do not value the lives of gentiles and are involved in ethnic cleansing of whites in america.
>Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation.
I agree, but the operative word is 'might', it might also not be and that's why refusing to defend him does not call into question Amnesty's commitment to promoting free speech, but only their clear judgement.
Defamation is not protected speech because it unjustly harms the person or people being defamed, and fabricating blood libel about holocaust victims would be very hard for amnesty to honestly justify.
>A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion.
A state can, potentially, define anything as any other thing, so this is not a particularly convincing argument without a solid example.
[1] http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%2071...
You are welcome to read, as an example, the very first article of Mr Toben's most recent newsletter [1] in which he makes the case that jews do not value the lives of gentiles and are involved in ethnic cleansing of whites in america.
>Getting arrested for defamation might be a freedom of speech violation.
I agree, but the operative word is 'might', it might also not be and that's why refusing to defend him does not call into question Amnesty's commitment to promoting free speech, but only their clear judgement.
Defamation is not protected speech because it unjustly harms the person or people being defamed, and fabricating blood libel about holocaust victims would be very hard for amnesty to honestly justify.
>A state can define 'incitement for racism' as expressing one's opinion.
A state can, potentially, define anything as any other thing, so this is not a particularly convincing argument without a solid example.
[1] http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%2071...
Wow. Thank you for digging up that crap. I expected that a holocaust denier would be odious and vile, but I didn't think he'd actually write about Jews ethnically cleansing white people. That is...just wow.
"Holocaust denial is not racism."
Only because it is even fucking stupider. At least your average racist keeps their hatred basic enough to keep their bullshit somewhat consistent as long as you don't remind them of where their favourite foods are from. Holocaust deniers are like the chem-trails version of racists.
Only because it is even fucking stupider. At least your average racist keeps their hatred basic enough to keep their bullshit somewhat consistent as long as you don't remind them of where their favourite foods are from. Holocaust deniers are like the chem-trails version of racists.
It should be. People speaking doesn't remove other people's free wills or personal responsibility. If someone commits a ciolent act, they're responsible, not some other guy who publicly advocated the act. Note: organizing or funding violence is another matter altogether, but has nothing to do with free speech.
They explicitly decided their goal did not include protecting hate speech before this 'historians' case came to light. I don't see anything wrong with that.
TLDR - this thread is basically about Amnesty refusing to defend holocaust deniers. You can apply Godwins law and move on immediately.
http://www.meredithtax.org/taxonomyblog/gita-sahgal-feminist...
Here's another interesting story I came across - basically, Amnesty sacked one of their staff because she, an outspoken feminist, criticised their cosy relationship with radical Islamists. If anyone reading this has time, follow some of the names in that article - you might discover, like I did, that the world is far more fucked up than you had previously imagined.
Here's another interesting story I came across - basically, Amnesty sacked one of their staff because she, an outspoken feminist, criticised their cosy relationship with radical Islamists. If anyone reading this has time, follow some of the names in that article - you might discover, like I did, that the world is far more fucked up than you had previously imagined.
Is this article not mistaken in referring to Miranda as a "Guardian employee"?
I imagine they presumed that due to the Guardian paying for the flights, and Guardian lawyers being involved in trying to resolve the detention. It seems that while he is working with/for the Guardian in some paid capacity, "employee" is probably not the correct word for the relationship.
We could ask the NSA for verification I guess but there is no mention anywhere on the Guardian sites or elsewhere that he's an employee so it is possible this is indeed mistaken.
This NYT article says the trip was paid for by the Guardian: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detai...
Paying for a ticket != signing an employment contract. That doesn't mean there is no such thing. I'd assume that the people that wrote that had some more information than what's in the media elsewhere but still it is as of yet unverified. And it would make a serious difference in this case.
If you are a UK voter, please remember to write to your MP:
http://www.writetothem.com/
Whilst it may feel like it does nothing. Its still an important part of the process. They get to understand the public mood regarding certain issues.
Whilst it may feel like it does nothing. Its still an important part of the process. They get to understand the public mood regarding certain issues.
O.o reading the other Article I thought about business "partner", pwnd me hard^^
Mind you, just read another article(1) about an undercover policeman gathering dossier evidence on "troublemakers" for an employment agency black list. Put that together with mass data collection, and hopefully Mr Nothing To Hide will realize that, yes, he might well have something to hide.
The troublemakers, you ask? Oh yeah, the evil terrorist organisation known as: Youth Against Racism... (Yeah, that was sarcasm.)
I see another really scary phrase there too: "politically dangerous". If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does any more.
(1) http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/police-activi...