Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338


I call bullshit
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
You care far too much about things.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
You care far too much about things.


You are right. I care too much for the rights of the public.

Fuck me, right?
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
I'd rather not.
Mr Willy
17 years ago
1 month ago
495
Maybe it could've put lives at risk.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
Maybe it could've put lives at risk.


Yes the truth does that. Not the lying that the governments do, at all.
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
Could be both.
King Luis
18 years ago
10 months ago
3,111
Maybe i'm being naive but i have no problem with the detention of David Miranda on the grounds they had, its a fairly obvious go to considering who his partner is.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
Maybe i'm being naive but i have no problem with the detention of David Miranda on the grounds they had, its a fairly obvious go to considering who his partner is.


A lot don't and never will. Ultimately though it is all to do with stopping everyone finding out just what they are doing that is against so many different laws. Essentially they are covering up many breaches of very serious crimes and are getting away with it with laws that are put in place for terrorists not people wanting the truth to be heard.
King Luis
18 years ago
10 months ago
3,111
But he potentially had information he shouldn't have had, so does a crime to reveal a crime make it all okay?
Sam
18 years ago
2 years ago
5,092
If the people who are responsible for the crimes he's revealing aren't being punished then that's wrong.
King Luis
18 years ago
10 months ago
3,111
Of course, but breaking laws to prove people have broken laws seems odd to me.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
That is just it, he should have had the information as it is information about a crime. If it wasn't about crimes then it would have been illegal to have. The police won't do anything bizarrely. The gravity of the crimes they are exposing are far more serious than simply having data as well.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
Of course, but breaking laws to prove people have broken laws seems odd to me.


Laws that shouldn't be there to start with. It should never be a crime to expose the truth.
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
No but you could obtain that information illegally - which is a crime regardless of what the truth is.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
No but you could obtain that information illegally - which is a crime regardless of what the truth is.


Suppressing the crime is the crime. Whistleblowing is not a crime.
Phoenix Arrow
16 years ago
2 years ago
825
Without knowing what information he had or what questions he was asked, it's impossible to tell if this can be justified or not. That information will probably never come out so this whole controversy is basically a way for people to project their own person beliefs all over something.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
It will come out just not via the Guardian.
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
Suppressing the crime is the crime. Whistleblowing is not a crime.


He may have stole the information that led to him obtaining these documents? We just don't know.
Ninja
15 years ago
7 years ago
5,341
But he potentially had information he shouldn't have had, so does a crime to reveal a crime make it all okay?


So therefore he's a terrorist?
King Luis
18 years ago
10 months ago
3,111
So therefore he's a terrorist?


Well no but detaining him under the terrorism makes sense given the information he potentially had.
Ninja
15 years ago
7 years ago
5,341
Well no but detaining him under the terrorism makes sense given the information he potentially had.


No it doesn't, arresting him and giving him a trial and doing things in a legal, transparent and accountable manner makes sense if they thought he had illegally obtained information.

What they did is despicable, it's akin to a mob boss ordering someone to be kneecapped because they haven't paid their protection money in time.

David Miranda was targeted because his boyfriend broke the story on PRISM, it doesn't matter what he had or didn't have, a democracy only works if the government, like the rest of us, is subject to the rule of law. Abusing 'terrorism' laws (which have stopped how many terrorists?) is not that.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
He may have stole the information that led to him obtaining these documents? We just don't know.


We do know though. Oh wait, did you mean it was stolen and given to him?

Well no but detaining him under the terrorism makes sense given the information he potentially had.


The terrorism is the acts done by the Government. Whistleblowing is not terrorism and neither is spying as they tried to claim Assange did.
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
We do know though. Oh wait, did you mean it was stolen and given to him?

The terrorism is the acts done by the Government. Whistleblowing is not terrorism and neither is spying as they tried to claim Assange did.


Stolen and given to him/stolen and made aware by terrorists too him I dunno.

For the record - I don't think he's done much wrong myself but calling bullshit instantly is pretty silly.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
Stolen and given to him/stolen and made aware by terrorists too him I dunno.

For the record - I don't think he's done much wrong myself but calling bullshit instantly is pretty silly.


I don't think it is silly in the slightest. The police are well known to cover their backs fast no matter what happens.
Ninja
15 years ago
7 years ago
5,341
Stolen and given to him/stolen and made aware by terrorists too him I dunno.

For the record - I don't think he's done much wrong myself but calling bullshit instantly is pretty silly.


I still think you're missing the point.

It's not really a matter of whether Miranda did or didn't do anything wrong, he might well have and the government would still have been in the wrong for what they did.
Poe
18 years ago
1 week ago
3,675
If the information he has is dangerous to national security I'm not so sure they have?
Ninja
15 years ago
7 years ago
5,341
If the information he has is dangerous to national security I'm not so sure they have?


If the information he has is dangerous to national security then there's a million and one recourses available to the government that don't involve detaining him on very flimsy 'terrorism' grounds and smashing his shit up (for a start, if he doesn't have it backed up elsewhere he's a moron, so you have to question what they actually achieved).

The fact that the government kept their American overlords involved and it was ordered from Cameron suggests what they did was for far different motives than that, anyway, and had far more to do with the fact it would embarrass the government than threaten their security.
Telegram Sam
16 years ago
4 months ago
5,082
Premium
I can't believe I'm saying this but I pretty much agree with KM on this one.
Obtuse
16 years ago
3 years ago
1,338
Your sig is pretty much me, right now.

You'll need to Login to comment