The British government’s decision to detain Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda for nine solid hours under the Terrorism Act has been roundly condemned, with Greenwald dubbing it a “failed attempt at intimidation.” It was also a bizarre decision that is sparking a significant backlash.
British Home Affairs Committee chair Keith Vaz is demanding an explanation to the “extraordinary” incident, and says the pretext under which the Terrorism Act would even apply “needs to be clarified, and clarified quickly.”
David Anderson, Britain’s anti-terror watchdog, is also following through with a demand for an investigation, as is the nation’s Shadow Home Secretary, who suggested that the law had been misused and warned that public support for the Terrorism Act would be in serious jeopardy if they’re using it for random detentions like this.
Indeed, this sort of petty abuse of the law, seemingly just for spite, has sparked outrage around the world, with the Brazilian Foreign Ministry demanding an explanation not only from Britain but from the US, insisting that Britain doesn’t do these sorts of things without an American imprimatur.
The White House insists they had no specific role in Miranda’s capture, but also seemed fine with it, saying that they were given a “heads up” by Britain and insisting that the matter is classified. They declined to criticize Britain, which puts them in a pretty small group that doesn’t see this as criticism-worthy.
Imagine the reaction if this had happened in Russia. The outrage would be heard from the rooftops. So, just more confirmation of the rule – it is not the act that matters, it is who does it.
Tony Blair — Bush's poodle.
David Cameron — Obama's poodle.
I understand these white terriers are lap doggies.
Time to put them to sleep.
Imagine the noise if other nations around the world started detaining family members of Congress – hell, maybe even a couple of Congresscritters themselves – for a day or two…say, Ted Cruz's wife or Rand Paul's son or even Louie Gohmert, or the IRA tool himself Peter King or a Kennedy…I mean if you want to see some outrage. I mean, they're all terrorist sympathizers, aren't they? They all support the USG.
I suspect that the whole thing may have been designed to provoke Greenwald into doing something stupid and thereby discrediting himself. As the reaction to 9/11 shows, Americans are very easy to provoke and are inclined to want to "get back" at their perceived aggressor, becoming ever more virulent when their initial attempts fail and thereby, often enough, shooting themselves in the foot. Greenwald's initial reaction in the Guardian suggests that he has, initially at least, fallen into the trap.
Huh? Greenwald's initial reaction? I read the linked article. I see no overreaction on his part. Toward the end, he says, "…every time the US and UK governments show their true character to the world – when they prevent the Bolivian President's plane from flying safely home, when they threaten journalists with prosecution, when they engage in behavior like what they did today – all they do is helpfully underscore why it's so dangerous to allow them to exercise vast, unchecked spying power in the dark."
What an understatement! The world is endangered by the very existence of these governments, and it's about time countries all over the world come to their senses and vigorously resist the US, UK governments and the powers that control them.