Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

17. Let

Reply to Warren Stupidity (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 19, 2013, 02:18 PM

Aug 2013

"So a person allegedly in possession of stolen documents was released without charges. Odd."

...Greenwald tell it.

Greenwald: Brazil’s Intervention Likely Kept Partner from Being Charged Under UK Terrorism Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490634

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How do you know they were stolen documents? [View all] ProSense Aug 2013 OP

How many times? hobbit709 Aug 2013 #1

"How many times" what? n/t ProSense Aug 2013 #3

If you gotta ask, you'll never understand. hobbit709 Aug 2013 #4

It's like something tweens say in 7th grade nt BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #16

LOL, there is no limit. n-t Logical Aug 2013 #12

How Many More Times Capn Sunshine Aug 2013 #35

But were they allegedly stolen from the NSA, or the GCHQ? leftstreet Aug 2013 #2

Well, ProSense Aug 2013 #5

Oh, good. The UK's not just retro-fitting a CYA story here leftstreet Aug 2013 #11

catch up grasswire Aug 2013 #6

Well, ProSense Aug 2013 #7

Read it again and you'll see ... GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #9

I did, and it's still Greenwald. ProSense Aug 2013 #13

I'll try: bemildred Aug 2013 #20

So ProSense Aug 2013 #22

I'm just trying to construe what the story says. bemildred Aug 2013 #24

Well, it ProSense Aug 2013 #25

No, read the first sentence: bemildred Aug 2013 #28

What's ProSense Aug 2013 #30

It says that Mr Greenwald says that all those documents were confiscated. bemildred Aug 2013 #31

Right, and you're assuming that it has no relation to the statement that follows. ProSense Aug 2013 #33

I'm assuming the text means what it says. nt bemildred Aug 2013 #34

You're in luck, the NYT now attributes it to Greenwald: bemildred Aug 2013 #38

Thanks for posting. n/t ProSense Aug 2013 #39

My pleasure. nt bemildred Aug 2013 #40

Slippery journalism from NYT? GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #8

If what you write is true, does that mean the NSA and GCHQ are still trying to figure Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #10

Apparently, the Brits stole them from Miranda so they could find out what the NSA is doing. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2013 #14

So a person allegedly in possession of stolen documents was released without charges. Warren Stupidity Aug 2013 #15

Let ProSense Aug 2013 #17

Not "odd" BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #21

The bold sentence was added by the author of the article. Rex Aug 2013 #18

No official is calling them stolen documents, because they weren't muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #19

If they are from the cache of documents Snowden took ProSense Aug 2013 #23

Woah, does that mean we can be detained for possessing leaked information? napoleon_in_rags Aug 2013 #26

"Woah," ProSense Aug 2013 #32

I'm just asking where the line is. napoleon_in_rags Aug 2013 #37

Your own OP says"Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr.Greenwald" DJ13 Aug 2013 #29

Yeah, unless Miranda had some other docs that weren't snowden's "stolen" Cha Aug 2013 #27

I'll go with the idea that they are exchanging ..... oldhippie Aug 2013 #36

Pads or liners? randome Aug 2013 #42

Actually, the question is meaningless. randome Aug 2013 #41