

UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism' - phelmig
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-uk-nsa-idUSBRE9A013O20131101?p=1

======
sologoub
I especially like this reasoning: "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of
disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose
of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the
definition of terrorism..." (from the "Ports Circulation Sheet" document cited
in the article.)

By this token, any kind of lobbying is also terrorism. Hell, any kind of
activism in a political space "is designed to influence a government and is
made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause".

Seems like a perfect illustration of the kind of slippery slope the world is
on.

This article seems to also parallel well with the Russian detention of a
Greenpeace ship and charging crew with piracy:
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-
against...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/piracy-charges-against-
greenpeace-activists-not-dropped/5065792). Effectively, "it's piracy because
we say so", just like "it's terrorism because we say so" logic in the "Ports
Circulation Sheet" document.

~~~
treeface
The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly
carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives."

Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.

~~~
sologoub
True, but the quoted statement appears to be self-contained. It is that much
more interesting that the author of the document seemed to feel the need to
add justification beyond the assertion that the documents could endanger
people's lives. It is this added justification that strikes me especially
problematic.

The definition of terrorism that is implied is so vague and arbitrary that it
seems that it can be attributed to almost any political process.

~~~
youngtaff
It's a quote from another document so we have no idea if it's self contained
without seeing the original document.

It's also worth remembering that Greenwald chose that quote to go in his
article so would have chosen to put it in a context that emphasises his
viewpoint.

I still don't understand why Miranda flew though the UK when he was carrying
UK intelligence materials - still looks like a baited trap for publicity to
me.

------
rb2e
This kind of response is not new sadly. On Netflix, there is a documentary on
Daniel Elisberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers [1] - The Most
Dangerous Man in America [2]. If you watch it and you'll see some of the
parallels to today with the responses between the State and Journalism.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers)
[2]
[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daniel_ellsberg_doc/)

~~~
phelmig
There is an interesting comment [1] from Ellsberg on Snowden as well:

[1][http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427...](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel-
ellsberg-pentagon-papers-snowden-s)

------
jevinskie
How do they know that his storage media contains 58,000 documents. Were the
files not transferred in an encrypted archive?

------
lucb1e
Since it's probably going to be changed soon, original submission's title: The
UK just equated journalism and terrorism...

~~~
phelmig
Should I change the title? I don't see how it violates any rules? It's not
click-baiting either. Unfortunately it's quite a summary of what the article
says ...

~~~
aray
UK was asserting that Miranda was involved in espionage and terrorism, but
you're asserting that it was journalism (carrying documents on behalf of
Greenwald) and I don't think that's really accurate.

~~~
phelmig
Well he was carrying documents meant for a journalist, that where to be
published by a legit newspapers. Sounds like being a part in a journalistic
process to me.

Sure the title maybe a bit edgy, but that it what it comes down to. That is
the important (and very bad) message.

~~~
jlgreco
Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't
involved in _the disclosure, or threat of disclosure... "_.

That is to say, if he wasn't participating in journalism, then how can it be
said that he was disclosing, or threatening to disclose, anything?

They _really did_ equate journalism with terrorism. The title, while
editorialized, is not an exaggeration.

~~~
DanBC
For some values of "they", not including (yet) the court where this document
was read out, right?

Because at the moment that value of "they" includes (from the article)
Scotland Yard, and (from outside the article) a few other similar
organisations (maybe GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc)

But certainly not "the UK". So the title, as well as being editorialized, is
an exaggeration.

EDIT: But let's see what happens with the court case, I guess.

~~~
trevelyan
Pretty much any member of parliament introducing a non-trivial bill into the
house for debate is a terrorist under this definition as well.

