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

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)

10. For fuck's sake.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 4, 2013, 01:14 PM

Nov 2013

No, serving as a real physical courier for classified information that was stolen from the intelligence service of a friendly power is not "thoughtcrime". It's actual crime. Whether you agree with the motivations of the guy who stole it or not.

Miranda was CARRYING LEAKED MATERIAL FOR GREENWALD.

His detention was entirely justified. Sorry, but it was.

Calling it terrorism was a bit of a stretch though.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1984 Arrives: UK cops officially detained David Miranda for thoughtcrime [View all] kpete Nov 2013 OP

That's not terrorism. That's blackmail. Hypothetical blackmail. DetlefK Nov 2013 #1

Well, clearly, the government is terrified. nt bemildred Nov 2013 #2

So the disclosure of the truth is terrorism. Savannahmann Nov 2013 #3

DURec leftstreet Nov 2013 #4

+1984. jsr Nov 2013 #5

Where is the full text of the charging document? Blue_Tires Nov 2013 #6

So if we read what they write, does that mean we're terrorists too? progressoid Nov 2013 #7

Yours is 1984 double speak. Miranda was in possession of Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #8

The OP directly quoted the "Port Circular Notice" used to justify the detainment of Miranda. bvar22 Nov 2013 #9

For fuck's sake. gcomeau Nov 2013 #10

"infludence a government": Doesn't that cover voting, reporting, lobbying, campaign contributions+ ? Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2013 #11

As E.Y. Harburg put it in 'Rhymes for the Irreverent'... LeftishBrit Nov 2013 #12

Leaked or whistleblown info has always been considered under the protection of the 1st Amendment. backscatter712 Nov 2013 #13