Qual é a ligação dos ataques contra os que denunciam com a guerra na Síria

Published on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 by Common Dreams

What the Assault on Whistleblowers Has to Do With War on Syria

US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks on Syria at the State Department in Washington on August 26, 2013. As the push for an attack on Syria continues, the adversarial press is again nowhere to be seen. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)Without whistleblowers, the mainline media outlets are more transfixed than ever with telling the official story. And at a time like this, the official story is all about spinning for war on Syria.

Every president who wants to launch another war can’t abide whistleblowers. They might interfere with the careful omissions, distortions and outright lies of war propaganda, which requires that truth be held in a kind of preventative detention.

Every time a president has decided to go to war against yet another country, the momentum has been unstoppable. Today, the craven foreshadow the dead.

By mid-week, media adrenalin was at fever pitch as news reports cited high-level sources explaining when the U.S. missile attacks on Syria were likely to begin, how long they might last, what their goals would be. But what about other (potential) sources who have documents and other information that contradict the official story?

It’s never easy for whistleblowers to take the risk of exposing secret realities. At times like these, it’s especially difficult—and especially vital—for whistleblowers to take the chance.

When independent journalist I.F. Stone said “All governments lie and nothing they say should be believed,” he was warning against the automatic acceptance of any government claim. That warning becomes most crucial when a launch of war is imminent. That’s when, more than ever, we need whistleblowers who can leak information that refutes the official line.

There has been a pernicious method to the madness of the Obama administration’s double-barreled assault on whistleblowers and journalism. Committed to a state of ongoing war, Obama has overseen more prosecutions of whistleblowers than all other presidents combined—while also subjecting journalists to ramped-up surveillance and threats, whether grabbing the call records of 20 telephone lines of the Associated Press or pushing to imprison New York Times reporter James Risen for not revealing a source.

There has been a pernicious method to the madness of the Obama administration’s double-barreled assault on whistleblowers and journalism.

The vengeful treatment of Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, the all-out effort to grab Edward Snowden and less-publicized prosecutions such as the vendetta against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake are all part of a government strategy that aims to shut down unauthorized pipelines of information to journalists—and therefore to the public. When secret information is blocked, what’s left is the official story, pulling out all the stops for war.

From the false Tonkin Gulf narrative in 1964 that boosted the Vietnam War to the fabricated baby-incubators-in-Kuwait tale in 1990 that helped launch the Gulf War to the reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction early in this century, countless deaths and unfathomable suffering have resulted from the failure of potential whistleblowers to step forward in a timely and forthright way—and the failure of journalists to challenge falsehoods in high government places.

There are no “good old days” to point to, no eras when an abundance of whistleblowers and gutsy reporters thoroughly alerted the public and subdued the power of Washington’s war-makers. But we’re now living in a notably—and tragically—fearful era. Potential whistleblowers have more reason to be frightened than ever, and mainline journalists rarely seem willing to challenge addiction to war.

Every time a president has decided to go to war against yet another country, the momentum has been unstoppable. Today, the craven foreshadow the dead. The key problems, as usual, revolve around undue deference to authority—obedience in the interests of expediency—resulting in a huge loss of lives and a tremendous waste of resources that should be going to sustain human life instead of destroying it.

With war at the top of Washington’s agenda, this is a time to make our voices heard. (To email your senators and representative, expressing opposition to an attack on Syria, click here.) A loud and sustained outcry against the war momentum is essential—and so is support for whistleblowers.

As a practical matter, real journalism can’t function without whistleblowers. Democracy can’t function without real journalism. And we can’t stop the warfare state without democracy. In the long run, the struggles for peace and democracy are one and the same.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Comments

Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments…

Hoje é 50º aniversário da famosa marcha de Martin Luther King sobre Washington.

Today is the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington
Hoje é 50º aniversário da famosa marcha de Martin Luther King sobre Washington.

De Kevin Martin
Tradução de Tarcisio Praciano-Pereira

Today is the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, the 50th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  Tonight, we’ll be listening to excerpts of President’s Obama’s speech at commemorations at the Lincoln Memorial.

Hoje é o 50º aniversário da Marcha sobre Washington, o 50º aniversário do discurso de Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have a Dream” (Eu tenho um sonho) . Hoje à noite, nós estaremos ouvindo trechos do discurso do presidente Obama em comemorações no Lincoln Memorial.

The mainstream media reports it’s all but certain that the U.S. will launch a military strike against Syria within the next few days, supposedly in retaliation, or to uphold the president’s “red line” or restore deterrence or some such thing.  There may well have been a chemical weapons attack, which is a heinous crime, but U.N. inspectors on the ground need four more days to accomplish their investigation, so we don’t know anything conclusively at this point. If it is established an attack occurred, those responsible must be held accountable by the International Criminal Court. Regardless, the president has no legal authority to attack Syria absent congressional and United Nations Security Council approval.
Translator’s note: there are suspicious thoughts that some of so-called rebels in Syria, have been funded by the United States of America and the possibility of use of chemical weapons would justify  the United States of America entering the conflict, or at least have the means ​​to justify the insertion  of the United States of America in the conflict. This has been published by the International Action  Center http://www.iacenter.org/actions/syria082713/

Os principais meios de comunicação informam que é quase certo que os EUA venham a lançar um ataque militar contra a Síria dentro dos próximos dias, sob variadas justificativas como “em retaliação”, ou “para defender a chamada “linha vermelha do presidente” ou ainda para produzir “dissuasão” ou enfim  alguma outra coisa parecida. Pode muito bem ter havido um ataque com armas químicas, que é um crime hediondo, mas os inspetores da ONU no local  precisam de mais quatro dias para realizar a investigação, por isso eu ainda não sei de nada conclusivo neste momento. Se ficar comprovado que houve um ataque com armas químicas, os responsáveis ​​devem ser levados ante o Tribunal Penal Internacional. Independentemente disso, o presidente não tem autoridade legal para atacar a Síria sem a aprovação do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas e do Congresso dos Estados Unidos da America.

Nota do tradutor: há denuncias, por exemplo feita pelo International Action Center,http://www.iacenter.org/actions/syria082713/ , de que alguns dos chamados rebeldes, na Síria, vem sendo financiados pelos Estados Unidos da America e a possibilidade de uso de armas químicas implicariam os Estados Unidos da America ou, no mínimo, teria sido feita para justificar a entrada dos  Estados Unidos da America no conflito.
http://www.iacenter.org/actions/syria082713/

I am not prepared to accept the inevitability of a U.S. attack on Syria, and I hope you will continue calling the White House comment line – 202.456.1111 – and please encourage others to do the same. Tell the president an attack is unacceptable, that diplomacy and humanitarian assistance are the only solutions to end the horrific civil war in Syria.  I also want to take this opportunity to ask you to make a most generous contribution to Peace Action, to help insure we remain a strong and forceful advocate for a just and peaceful future.
http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=DREG2fjlICABcXat4EZXP5r6m48eaaD%2B

Eu não estou preparado para aceitar a inevitabilidade de um ataque dos EUA contra a Síria, e eu espero que você continue chamando a linha de comentários da Casa Branca – 202.456.1111 – e por favor, incentive outros a fazerem o mesmo. Diga ao presidente que um ataque é inaceitável, que a diplomacia e ajuda humanitária são as únicas soluções para acabar com a terrível guerra civil na Síria. Também quero aproveitar esta oportunidade para lhe pedir que faça uma contribuição generosa para a Peace Action, para ajudar a garantir que continuamos a ser um defensor forte e contundente para um futuro justo e pacífico.

I, and others in the peace movement, quote Dr. King often.  He is recognized not only as the great leader of the Civil Rights movement but also as a great leader of the peace movement and a prophet of non-violence. He left a treasure trove of quotes.  My favorite of his quotes seems most appropriate for this moment as we stand on the precipice of what can only be described as a futile and unnecessary plunge back into the deep well of violence that has become our nation’s M.O.
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Eu, e outros no movimento pela paz, citamos Dr. King freqüência. Ele é reconhecido não só como o grande líder do movimento dos direitos civis, mas também como um grande líder do movimento pela paz e um profeta da não-violência. Ele deixou um tesouro de citações. A minha favorita, dentre as suas citações, e que me parece muito apropriada para este momento em que nos encontramos à beira de algo que só pode ser descrito como um mergulho fútil e desnecessário no poço profundo da violência que vem tomando conta de nossa nação é esta: “A mais profunda fraqueza da violência é a de ser uma espiral descendente, gerando a mesma coisa que procura destruir. Em vez de diminuir o mal, ela o multiplica. Através da violência você pode matar um mentiroso, mas não pode matar a mentira, nem estabelecer a verdade. Através da violência você pode matar o inimigo, mas você não conseguira matar o ódio. Na verdade, a violência simplesmente aumenta o ódio. O resultando é apenas a violência pela violência multiplicando a violência, acrescentando trevas mais profundas numa noite que já se encontra sem estrelas. A escuridão não pode expulsar a escuridão: só a luz pode fazer isso. O ódio não pode expulsar o ódio: só o amor pode fazer isso.”

If the fury and weight of the U.S. military is unleashed, more innocent civilians will likely lose their lives.  Less certain is whether it will stop Syria from future acts of indiscriminate murder or simply multiply the violence, “adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”

Se a fúria e o peso do exército dos EUA for liberado, mais civis inocentes, provavelmente, vão perder suas vidas. Menos certo é se esta fúria irá impedir a Síria de futuros atos de assassinato indiscriminado ou simplesmente multiplicar a violência “acrescentando uma escuridão mais profunda a uma noite já não tem estrelas”.

Thank you for adding your voice to Peace Action’s call to flood the White House comment line to oppose U.S. military action.  I want to assure you Peace Action is working with our allies in Congress and in the wider peace and justice movement to do everything we can to stop a U.S. military strike which risks a wider war.

Obrigado por adicionar a sua voz ao apelo de Ação pela Paz e por inundar linha de comentários da Casa Branca para se opor a uma ação militar dos EUA. Eu quero garantir-lhes que  Peace Action está trabalhando com nossos aliados no Congresso assim como um amplo e movimento pela justiça no sentido de fazer tudo o que pudermos para impedir um ataque militar dos EUA que venha a aumenta o risco duma guerra mais ampla.

Together, we must demand our government end this insane cycle of violence that does nothing to bring the guilty to justice but much to perpetuate injustice and insecurity.You can help our organization do its part by making a most generous contribution to Peace Action.

Juntos, devemos exigir do governo o fim deste ciclo insano de violência que não faz nada para levar os culpados à justiça, mas faz muito para perpetuar a injustiça e a insegurança. Você pode ajudar a nossa organização fazer a sua parte, contribuindo de forma mais generosa para Peace Action.

Humbly for Peace,
Humildemente pela Paz

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

P.S. – Dr. King also said “Those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war.” Your contribution to that objective makes a huge difference.

Dr. King também disse: “Aqueles que amam a paz devem aprender a organizar-se de forma tão eficaz como aqueles que amam a guerra”. A sua contribuição para esse objectivo faz uma enorme diferença.

Ministro Lobão, de carvão? Não!

Greenpeace

O mundo já sabe que o carvão é uma das fontes de energia mais poluentes que existem. Só o governo não entende. Por isso fomos a Brasília mostrar a

O mundo está procurando se dirigir para energia limpa, o Brasil tem uma exposição solar imensa então carvão é completamente absurdo.

O mundo está procurando se dirigir para energia limpa, o Brasil tem uma exposição solar imensa então carvão é completamente absurdo.

sujeira que ele causa. Na frente do prédio do Ministério de Minas e Energia, mineiros sujos dos pés à cabeça despejaram uma tonelada e meia de briquete de carvão e estenderam uma faixa com a mensagem: “Lobão, carvão no leilão não!”.

Edison Lobão é o ministro que comanda a política de energia do país. Amanhã, dia 29 de agosto, o leilão A-5 vai ofertar 1.840 MW de energia produzida por térmicas a carvão. Isso não acontecia desde 2009. E não deveria acontecer nunca mais.

Não podemos deixar o carvão voltar ao leilão, mostre sua indignação. Deixe sua mensagem para

Alerta contra nova guerra dos Estados Unidos da America do Norte

WAR ALERT: Syria in danger of U.S. bombing

John Kerry has just made an ominous announcement that the U.S. intends to take “action” against Syria, and that Syria will be “held accountable.” Talk of a chemical weapons attack in Syria is filling the airwaves. The U.S. is blaming the Assad government for it and openly talking of direct military intervention.

We, as the antiwar movement, have a duty to denounce any military action against Syria by the United States. If U.S. war begins against Syria, be in the streets. Make plans.

Emergency protest in New York City at Times Square, 5:00pm

Actions will take place at Federal Buildings, the offices of military contractors and other symbols of U.S. militarism.

Send us word of your local action: iac@iacenter.org

We must make clear that we will not be tricked into another war designed to make profits for the Wall Street military contractors and oil profiteers. Such a war will take thousands of innocent lives. There is no justification for such a criminal act.

The billions of dollars that such a war would cost should be spent on education, schools, healthcare, and other basic societal needs. The fact that another foreign war is being considered, at a time that food stamps are being cut, record numbers of homes are being foreclosed, and schools are being shut down and privatized in the name of a “budget crisis”, is outrageous. Austerity is continuing in the U.S. and public sector workers’ jobs are being eliminated. Basic infrastructure within the U.S. is crumbling. Bridges are insecure. Water is not being properly purified.

A new war will be disastrous for people of the Middle East, the U.S., and the entire world. According to a Reuters poll, 89% of the population is opposed to U.S. support for Syrian opposition.

FACTS on SYRIA:

  • There is absolutely no evidence or confirmation that the Assad government carried out the alleged chemical attack.
  • United Nations weapons inspectors are in Syria at the direct REQUEST of the Syrian government to prove that they have not used chemical weapons. The attack took place a mere ten miles away from the inspection team, on the very day they arrived.
  • Carla Del Ponte, a United Nations Human Rights investigator, has stated that the Syrian government has not used chemical weapons but the rebels have.
  • In May, 12 members of the Syrian rebel forces were arrested in Turkey. The rebels possessed 4.5 pounds of Sarin, the neurotoxin gas alleged to have been used in the recent attack.
  • In January, the “Daily Mail”, a prominent British newspaper, reported that the Syrian rebels were planning a chemical attack which they would blame on the Syrian government in order to justify U.S. intervention. The report was based on leaked emails from military contractors.
  • The Syrian rebels are receiving direct weapons and funding from the United States, despite their record of atrocities including rape, murder, and torture. The U.N. has reported that they are actively recruiting young children, in addition to other violations of international law.
  • The Assad government has fully cooperated with the weapons inspection teams.
  • Members of the United Nations inspection team have openly stated their doubts about the chemical attack. Dr. Ake Sellstrom, the leader of the team, called the reports of the alleged attack “suspicious”.
  • Reports on the attack are extremely inconsistent. Some reports said over 1,300 were killed. Other reports have said less than 200. Still other reports say over 350. The numbers are unclear and totally unsubstantiated.
  • The report being circulated by “Doctors Without Borders” is not based on their own information, but based on reports they received from a Syrian rebel group by their own admission.
  • Videos of the alleged attack were posted on the internet by allies of the Syrian rebels, BEFORE the attack took place.
  • The credibility of the video of the alleged chemical attack is being widely questioned by chemical weapons experts. The victims are not displaying the proper symptoms of having been struck by a Sarin nerve gas. The people shown treating them are not wearing proper equipment.
  • The U.S. is currently urging the U.N. weapons inspection team to halt its work. The U.N. weapons inspectors insist that they must be allowed to continue their investigations and to determine actual facts.

Despite all of this confusion and inconsistency in the claims about this alleged attack, the U.S. government, along with its corporate allies in Britain and France are openly pushing for an attack on Syria.

We have seen all this before:

  • The Spanish-American War was justified with an alleged attack on the U.S.S. Maine. In reality, the ship was sunk by an internal explosion.
  • The U.S. entrance into World War I was justified with the “Zimmerman Telegram”, claiming Germans were plotting to invade the U.S. with Mexico. The telegram was later proven to be a fraud.
  • The Vietnam War was justified with the “Gulf of Tonkin”incident claiming Vietnam had attacked a U.S. ship. It was later proved that the alleged attack never actually took place.
  • In 1983, the U.S. invasion of Grenada was based on allegations that the government was planning to murder U.S. medical students. This was proven to be complete fiction.
  • In 1989, the U.S. overthrow of the government of Panama was based on false allegations about drugs and attacks on U.S. troops.
  • The U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was justified with reports of with unsubstantiated reports of genocide in Serbia. A great number of these reports have been totally discredited.
  • The Gulf War of 1991 was justified with false reports of Iraqi War crimes in Kuwait. The “babies thrown from incubators” stories that filled the TV news, were proven to be totally false.
  • In 1991, the U.S. used satellite photos to claim that Iraq was amassing soldiers to invade Saudi Arabia. The photos were proven later to have been complete forgeries.
  • The U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was justified in the name of fighting a “war on terror” after Sept.11. None of the people who allegedly carried out the 9/11 attacks had any connections with Afghanistan or its government.
  • The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on reports of “weapons of mass destruction” and “chemical and biological weapons.” After the U.S. invaded, killing thousands of innocent people, it was proven that Iraq never had any such weapons.
  • The U.S. intervention in Libya was justified with claims of genocide and rape. Now that the Libyan government has been overthrown and thousands innocent Libyans killed, many of these reports have also been thoroughly discredited.

MONEY FOR HUMAN NEEDS, NOT A NEW WAR!

U.S. HANDS OFF SYRIA!

END U.S. FUNDING OF ISRAEL AND EGYPT!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!

Published on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 by Common Dreams

Miranda’s Lawyers Threaten UK over ‘Flagrant Misuse’ of Authority

British government defends detention of journalist’s partner and use of anti-terrorism law to search personal electronic devices and abridge civil liberties

– Jon Queally, staff writer

Lawyers representing David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who was recently detained by British authorities under the unprecedented interpretation of a terrorism statute while passing through Heathrow Airport, have sent the UK’s Home Office a letter demanding an apology for his treatment, clarification of the legal authority used, and indicating their willingness to file suit on behalf of their client if his electronic media are not returned, unspoiled immediately.

David Miranda: Glenn Greenwald’s partner has threatened legal action over his nine-hour detention at Heathrow. (Photograph: Ricardo Moraes/Reuters) Miranda’s nine-hour detention on Sunday has caused an uproar over what critics charge is the UK government’s flagrant violation of individual and journalistic freedoms and a misuse of the statute known as Schedule 7, part of the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000.

The letter from his lawyers claims the detention of Miranda was for “an improper purpose and was therefore unlawful,” that the decision to cite Schedule 7 “amounted to a grave and manifestly disproportionate interference with [his] rights,” and that overall the British authorities were guilty of “a flagrant misuse of the [their] statutory powers.”

And the Guardian newspaper—which was given access to the letter by the law firm Bindmans in London—reports that “if the undertakings are not given by Tuesday afternoon [the lawyers] will have no option but to seek an urgent interim injunction in the high court.”

The Guardian, which finds itself covering events while simultaneously becoming a prominent figure in the case, released a statement which read: “David Miranda has filed a legal claim with regard to his detention at Heathrow airport on Sunday 18 August under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. The Guardian is supportive of that claim.”

Though the newspaper paid for Miranda’s flights to and from Germany for the trip in question, he is not an official employee, though he provides assistance to Greenwald’s work.

Meanwhile, the UK government’s Home Office went from defense to offense against outcry over the incident, claiming in public statements on Tuesday that it acted properly against Miranda, because the Brazilian man possessed “highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism.”

Though they offered no context for how they believed Miranda’s personal belongings might “help terrorism,” the language used and lack of speculation in the statement seemed to indicate that government authorities had, indeed, already searched the electronic devices taken from Miranda, which included, according to the Guardian, “his mobile phone, laptop, memory sticks, smart-watch, DVDs and games consoles.”

Anticipating that his devices had already been search, the letter from Miranda’s lawyers included these stipulations:

Published on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 by Common Dreams

Miranda’s Lawyers Threaten UK over ‘Flagrant Misuse’ of Authority

British government defends detention of journalist’s partner and use of anti-terrorism law to search personal electronic devices and abridge civil liberties

– Jon Queally, staff writer

Lawyers representing David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who was recently detained by British authorities under the unprecedented interpretation of a terrorism statute while passing through Heathrow Airport, have sent the UK’s Home Office a letter demanding an apology for his treatment, clarification of the legal authority used, and indicating their willingness to file suit on behalf of their client if his electronic media are not returned, unspoiled immediately.

David Miranda: Glenn Greenwald’s partner has threatened legal action over his nine-hour detention at Heathrow. (Photograph: Ricardo Moraes/Reuters) Miranda’s nine-hour detention on Sunday has caused an uproar over what critics charge is the UK government’s flagrant violation of individual and journalistic freedoms and a misuse of the statute known as Schedule 7, part of the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000.

The letter from his lawyers claims the detention of Miranda was for “an improper purpose and was therefore unlawful,” that the decision to cite Schedule 7 “amounted to a grave and manifestly disproportionate interference with [his] rights,” and that overall the British authorities were guilty of “a flagrant misuse of the [their] statutory powers.”

And the Guardian newspaper—which was given access to the letter by the law firm Bindmans in London—reports that “if the undertakings are not given by Tuesday afternoon [the lawyers] will have no option but to seek an urgent interim injunction in the high court.”

The Guardian, which finds itself covering events while simultaneously becoming a prominent figure in the case, released a statement which read: “David Miranda has filed a legal claim with regard to his detention at Heathrow airport on Sunday 18 August under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. The Guardian is supportive of that claim.”

Though the newspaper paid for Miranda’s flights to and from Germany for the trip in question, he is not an official employee, though he provides assistance to Greenwald’s work.

Meanwhile, the UK government’s Home Office went from defense to offense against outcry over the incident, claiming in public statements on Tuesday that it acted properly against Miranda, because the Brazilian man possessed “highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism.”

Though they offered no context for how they believed Miranda’s personal belongings might “help terrorism,” the language used and lack of speculation in the statement seemed to indicate that government authorities had, indeed, already searched the electronic devices taken from Miranda, which included, according to the Guardian, “his mobile phone, laptop, memory sticks, smart-watch, DVDs and games consoles.”

Anticipating that his devices had already been search, the letter from Miranda’s lawyers included these stipulations:

The full letter, obtained by the Guardian, can be found here.

As the debate raged, the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald continued to provide his unique perspective on the situation via Twitter. At one point on Tuesday, Greenwald blasted news outlets, in this case CNN, for painting a false impression of the implications of Miranda’s detention and the overall behavior of the US and UK governments in relation to the documents made available by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden earlier this year:

US/UK imprisons whistleblowers, calls journalists criminals for working with their sources, detain my partner under a TERRORISM law and take his passwords to his Facebook and email accounts, block Evo Morales’ plane from flying, smash the Guardian’s hard drives, but – WE are the ones being “threatening”

The full letter, obtained by the Guardian, can be found here.

As the debate raged, the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald continued to provide his unique perspective on the situation via Twitter. At one point on Tuesday, Greenwald blasted news outlets, in this case CNN, for painting a false impression of the implications of Miranda’s detention and the overall behavior of the US and UK governments in relation to the documents made available by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden earlier this year:

US/UK imprisons whistleblowers, calls journalists criminals for working with their sources, detain my partner under a TERRORISM law and take his passwords to his Facebook and email accounts, block Evo Morales’ plane from flying, smash the Guardian’s hard drives, but – WE are the ones being “threatening”