The lawsuits surrounding the British government’s detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda took an odd turn today with the introduction of a statement prepared by Scotland Yard which accused him of involvement in “espionage” and “terrorism.”
The statement sought to justify the detention of Miranda at an airport during his flight to Brazil, and the espionage claim was never justified, beyond the claim that he “had the potential to act against the interests of UK national security.”
The “terrorism” justification is just flat out shocking, however, since it insists that advocacy journalism “falls within the definition of terrorism” because it involves disclosures which are “designed to influence a government.”
The argument is particularly bizarre because despite the detention and confiscation of Miranda’s personal effects, there was no arrest made. Greenwald was particularly critical of the report, noting they are “explicitly equating terrorism with journalism.”
I got the part that the word is for screwing whoever you damn well please in 2001. A few ~tangible examples came a little later. To a friend who was caught sleeping on watch, the CO sez "looking over your record [which woulda included two prior naps], […] you're a terrorist." My friend said that one really got to him; but I laughed "He just told you what the word is for! Tell yah what I'da said to him: 'sir, that's exactly the kind of neoGoebelism I'd expect from a career killer, sir.'" But CO's assessment of him was right on. He "shaped up," appeared motivated, and never really spoke to me again…for whatever reason, but he'd definitely fallen for GWoT. Another was SECNAV Gordon R. England speaking to all off-watch. The speech had a sort of intentional pointlessness built in with one memorable line: "All my life I've been fighting 'isms.'" And he listed his former enemy isms. Immediately after that speech, multiple smokers apparently would say that the 'terrorism' bit was BS… ~an 'enemy' ill-defined, infinitely flexible, eternally ~'fightable' regardless of what 'it' morphs into. It basically means 'sic 'em.' And I couldn't imagine getting anything else out of that speech. Even wondered if it coulda been about flushing out and/or preempting people who already thought so.
We've seen in this space some colorably 'sloppy,' or 'juvenile' equating of 'terrorism' with whatever p–sed off some politician, but it's nice that we've got a clearer than normal case of this use. Hang them with it.
Now reality and truth are the enemies of the UK and US governments. Reality and truth are weapons for terrorists' attachs. Wow.
Democracy is a joke. Freedom is a sound made by strange people.
I'm awakening in bizarro's world.
The word "terrorism" is being used by democratically elected government to create fear among law abiding citizens, they deliberately target non- combatants to enforce a code of silence usually not labeled terrorism, but is purely politically motivated.
CNN's Christiana Amanpour, manlike looking woman, was the first notable advocacy journalist during the Yugoslav civil war in the nineties. Will anyone go after her for her terrorist activities?
Isn't she on the non-terrorist side these days?
If "trying to influence governments" is terrorism, wouldn't that mean AIPAC is a terrorist organization? Wouldn't that mean every lobbyist on K and J streets is a terrorist? I agree that this is being done to create fear among potential whistle blowers, and those who report whatever they may divulge, but it has the potential to curb any kind of speech or writing that doesn't fawningly praise government and everyone in it. Would voting for non-incumbents fit this latest interpretation of terrorist activity? The act of voting certainly has the potential to influence government, as does writing letters to current representatives. This is a very slippery slope that Scotland Yard has headed down in an attempt to cover their butts. Worse, the fact it was a prepared statement means this likely wasn't just the Yard's opinion. Someone higher up approved it.
The glaring misuse of powerful descriptor words like "terrorist" and "mentally unbalanced" were long the hallmarks of fascist/communist regimes (and still are, in places). That these crude propaganda tactics have now been widely adopted by so-called democratic nations like the UK and US is an ominous sign. Not new, but now rapidly spreading in usage and of course being dutifully parroted by mass media puppets.
Russia is hardly a civil libertarian dream nation but in contrast to the former "free world" at least there is the virtue of cynical honesty. They at least try not to parody the old Soviet style manual too much. That has no credibility with their citizens. But the sheep in "advanced democracies" seem gullible to such clumsy tactics. Instead, we need to follow the old Soviet bloc public attitude: if it comes from government sources (and what doesn't?) believe nothing unless independently verified by skeptical non government sources.
Of course you then may be labeled a "terrorist" but so be it. Such labels must be largely discounted until evidence is clear and from unbiased sources.
The best defense is a good offense.
Don't believe what the government tells us……………………???????????????/ You're a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i suppose this means the liars are tired of being caught and called out…………. Someone is in for a big surprise''''''''' I wonder it it will be us the citizen "terrorists" or our accusatory lying elected leaders???
And the US and the UK are involved in war crimes and genocide.