AdamSmith

What would it take to convince you? They are not stupid -- they are evil.

Andrew Sullivan, the American blogger, has written a powerful post about the David Miranda case. When Glenn Greenwald started publishing his NSA revelations in the Guardian, Sullivan was sceptical about claims made by Greenwald and other civil libertarians that the state was abusing his powers. Now he says he has changed his stance. Here's an extract. David was detained for nine hours – the maximum time under the law, to the minute. He therefore falls into the 3 percent of interviewees particularly, one assumes, likely to be linked to terrorist organizations. My obvious question is: what could possibly lead the British security services to suspect David of such ties to terror groups? I have seen nothing anywhere that could even connect his spouse to such nefarious contacts. Unless Glenn is some kind of super-al-Qaeda mole, he has none to my knowledge and to suspect him of any is so close to unreasonable it qualifies as absurd. The idea that David may fomenting terrorism is even more ludicrous ... In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state. You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed. You have broken the trust that enables any such legislation to survive in a democracy. By so doing, you have attacked British democracy itself. What on earth do you have to say for yourself? And were you, in any way, encouraged by the US administration to do such a thing? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

In America Trevor Timm, the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, has written a blog strongly condemning the detention of David Miranda. Here's an extract. The most appalling part of the story is the use of UK’s “terrorism” law as a guise to detain David, who, of course, has nothing to do with terrorism. Just like the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act, which have been used by the NSA to create mass domestic surveillance databases of millions of innocent people, the “terrorism” law in the UK declares the “power to stop and question may be exercised without suspicion of involvement in terrorism.” The NSA stories published by Greenwald and others have prompted an unprecedented debate in the US about the government’s vast surveillance powers, and major reforms now seem likely to pass Congress. Maybe this incident will spark renewed outrage over Britain “terrorism” law, which thousands of innocent people have been subject to , and laws permitting suspicion-less border searches in general. Ironically, this incident comes the same day as a long profile in New York Times Magazine of [Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has worked with Glenn Greenwald on the NSA revelations and whom Miranda visited in Berlin before his detention] who has shamefully been the subject of similar harassment at the border by the US for years, solely because she produces journalism that the United States government apparently does not like. It’s unknown whether the US had any involvement in the detention of Miranda but questions should be asked as to what they knew and when. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

And in the UK the Society of Editors has strongly condemned the treatment of David Miranda. This is from Bob Satchwell, its executive director. Journalism may be embarrassing and annoying for governments but it is not terrorism. It is difficult to know how in this instance the law was being used to prevent terrorism. On the face of it it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the detention of a journalist's partner is anything other than an attempt to intimidate a journalist and his news organisation that is simply informing the public of what is being done by authorities in their name. It is another example of a dangerous tendency that the initial reaction of authorities is to assume that journalists are bad when in fact they play an important part in any democracy. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

Nick Cohen has written a terrific blog for the Spectator about the detention of David Miranda which includes a nice account of his (doomed) attempt to get some answers about the affair from the Scotland Yard press office. Here's an extract. The detention of David Miranda at Heathrow is a clarifying moment that reveals how far Britain has changed for the worse. Nearly everyone suspects the Met held Miranda on trumped up charges because the police, at the behest of the Americans, wanted to intimidate Miranda’s partner Glenn Greenwald, the conduit of Edward Snowden’s revelations, and find out whether more embarrassing information is on Greenwald’s laptop ... The Terrorism Act of 2000, which the Met used against Miranda, says that terrorism involves ‘serious violence against a person’ or ‘serious damage to property’. The police can also detain the alleged terrorist because he or she ‘endangers a person’s life’, ‘poses a serious risk to the health and safety of the public’ or threatens to interfere with ‘an electronic system’. I wanted to ask the Met: Which of these above offences did your officers suspect that Miranda might have been about to commit? What reasonable grounds did they have for thinking he could endanger lives or property? And, more to the point, which terrorist movement did you believe Miranda was associated with: al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Continuity IRA, ETA, Shiv Sena, the provisional wing of the Unabomber Appreciation Society? Greenwald may not thank me for saying this but in one respect America is an admirable country. In the US, the police reply to reporters’ questions. They may lie, but at least they reply. In the UK, they say nothing. Chief constables could save precious money and protect front line services by sacking every police press officer in the UK. They are useless. Actually, they are worse than useless: they are sinister. They provide the illusion of accountability while blocking it at every stage. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, has described the detention of David Miranda as "a gross misuse of law". [Miranda's] detention and treatment was a gross misuse of the law and clearly linked to the work of his partner Glenn Greenwald, who revealed the extent of mass surveillance and wholesale interception of internet traffic by the US security services and its collusion with GCQH. It's rather ironic that the police's response, in turn, is to put the partner of a journalist under surveillance and detain him in this way. Miranda had been used as a go-between by Greenwald and film-maker Laura Poitras, in Berlin, who had been working with him on the information supplied by Edward Snowden. This material has now been confiscated. Journalists no longer feel safe exchanging even encrypted messages by email and now it seems they are not safe when they resort to face-to-face meetings. This is not an isolated problem. The treatment meted out to David Miranda is wholly unacceptable and it is time the use, or rather misuse, of terrorism legislation as a way of targeting individuals was properly and independently reviewed. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

Liberty, the human rights pressure group, is already challenging schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act at the European Court of Human Rights. (See 1.05pm.) Here's a news release with more details about the case. Liberty has long argued that Schedule 7 is overbroad legislation, ripe for misuse and discrimination, and currently has a case pending at the European Court of Human Rights challenging the power. The case involves a British citizen of Asian origin who was detained at Heathrow under Schedule 7 for four and a half hours in November 2010. During his detention, he was questioned about his salary, his voting habits and the trip he had been on, among other matters. Copies were taken of all his paperwork and credit cards and the police kept his mobile phone, which was only returned to him eight days later after having to pay for its return himself. He had never previously been arrested or detained by the police and was travelling entirely lawfully. And here is a Liberty submission to a Home Office review proposing changes to schedule 7 (pdf). http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

MPs have decided to use a parliamentary inquiry into terrorist legislation to force the police to explain why David Miranda, partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained for almost nine hours at Heathrow airport under a controversial anti-terror law. The law (schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act) is only supposed to be used to stop people suspected of being involved in terrorism. (See 4.32pm.) Keith Vaz, the chair of the Commons home affairs committee, used a letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to pose a series of questions about the affair. (See 5.16pm.) He issued this statement. This is an extraordinary twist to an already complex story. It is right that the Police have these powers but it is important that they are used appropriately. I have today written to the Metropolitan police commissioner asking him to clarify this use of the Terrorism Act and whether it was implemented at the behest of another government. We need to establish the full facts. I am concerned about the message this sends out to all those who transit through the UK. Our legislation needs to be used proportionately. The home affairs select committee will begin an inquiry into terrorism shortly and we will certainly be looking at this issue very closely. Britain's independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, David Anderson QC, has also said he wants to be told why schedule 7 was used to detain Miranda. And Labour has demanded a full explanation. (See 12.54pm.) • Anderson has suggested that government plans to restrict the use of schedule 7 do not got far enough. (See 1.54pm.) He has encouraged people to lobby their MPs on this issue. (See 3.44pm.) The pressure group Liberty has also said the Miranda case highlights the importance of its legal challenge to schedule 7 at the European Court of Human Rights. (See 5.08pm.) • The Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists have both strongly condemned the treatment of Miranda. Miranda's detention was "a gross misuse of the law and clearly linked to the work of his partner Glenn Greenwald", Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ general secretary, said. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

Why does that sound vaguely dirty? As though you were his truss.

Here's that article. Charlotte medical team uses 'ick' factor to cure stubborn GI infection By Karen Garloch kgarloch@charlotteobserver.com Posted: Tuesday, Apr. 09, 2013 TODD SUMLIN - tsumlin@charlotteobserver.com Dr. Barry Schneider, a gastroenterologist at Carolinas Medical Center-University, got approval from a hospital committee before performing Charlotte's first fecal transplant last summer. "It's basically like a huge dose of probiotics." TODD SUMLIN - tsumlin@charlotteobserver.com More Information Clostridium difficile • Pronounced “klo-STRID-ee-um DIF-uh-seel.” C. diff, for short. The infection is usually acquired during a hospital stay or in a long-term care center by patients who are taking or have previously taken antibiotics. • The bacterium, found in the feces, causes severe diarrhea. It is diagnosed by sampling the stool or examining the colon. The infection kills an estimated 14,000 U.S. patients each year. • When a patient takes antibiotics, good germs that protect against infection are destroyed for months. During this time, patients can get sick from C. diff picked up from contaminated surfaces or spread from a health care provider’s hands. • C. diff is generally treated with antibiotics. But many patients have recurrent infections because the bacteria have become resistant to those drugs. • The best prevention is washing hands with soap and hot water. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov Pam Kee calls herself a “mixologist.” But the concoction in her blender comes together at a hospital. Kee is a nurse at Carolinas Medical Center-University, where she assists Dr. Barry Schneider with an unusual therapy that can cure a potentially deadly gastrointestinal infection. The treatment is called a fecal transplant – and it’s just what the name implies. Feces from a healthy donor is transferred into a sick patient to create a new, infection-free environment in the gut. It may sound disgusting, but it works. The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported on a study in the Netherlands that found fecal transplants significantly more effective than standard antibiotics to treat the persistent infection called Clostridium difficile, or C. diff, for short. “This is a procedure that is saving lives,” said Dr. Lawrence Brandt, a gastroenterologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Brandt, who was not involved in the Dutch study, has been performing fecal transplants for 14 years. “The only people who say it’s disgusting are sometimes the doctors,” Brandt said, “and even doctors are coming around now.” Last summer, Schneider performed the first fecal transplant in Charlotte. He’s one of a handful of North Carolina doctors who have embraced the strange-sounding treatment. Brandt estimates that fewer than 100 doctors in the country offer it now. But that’s about to change, as he and others pursue research they hope will bring the therapy into the medical mainstream. Interest is high because of the dramatic rise of C. diff infection in the United States. An estimated 3 million cases occur each year in hospitals and nursing homes. The infection is linked to 14,000 deaths each year. Patients often develop the infection after taking antibiotics that wipe out beneficial, as well as harmful, bacteria in the gut, and also after surgery, when immune systems are weak. The infection is hard to treat because the bug has become resistant to antibiotics. Today, fecal transplants are typically considered as a last resort, after antibiotics have failed to cure recurrent infections. But that could change if research proves what doctors have reported anecdotally. Even before the Dutch study, Brandt published a report on 77 patients who had fecal transplants at five different centers. Ninety-one percent were cured after only one transplant; 98 percent after the others got a second. The treatment appears to work because healthy bacteria in the donor’s feces repopulate the sick patient’s gut, restoring balance and preventing C. diff germs from causing disease. “I think we’re on to something here,” Schneider said. New approach to problem As medicine becomes more high-tech – from gene therapy to robotic surgery – these transplants stand in contrast. They’re about as low-tech as you can get, using the body’s natural byproduct. At 59, Schneider finds it rewarding to be trying something new that works so well for such a stubborn infection. In 25 years as a gastroenterologist, he has twice gone to the extreme of removing the colons of C. diff patients who didn’t respond to antibiotics. He first considered a fecal transplant after meeting a particularly desperate patient. The Gaston County woman, in her 80s, had developed the infection last year after surgery and had taken four courses of antibiotics without success. The stronger the antibiotic, the more expensive: One 10-day course of Dificid, a new drug, cost $3,000. The woman’s distraught family had, like Schneider, read about fecal transplants, and encouraged him to try it. After getting approval from a hospital committee, Schneider did the transplant in August. The patient, who had been house-bound for six months because of diarrhea, got well in a couple of days. Since then, Schneider – with nurse Kee’s help – has performed five more transplants at CMC-University. Two doctors at CMC-Pineville have performed four, including two on one patient. All the patients have been cured. ‘A big “ick” factor’ Before Kee prepares a donation, she dons two surgical masks that she has sprayed with a “Rain Fresh” fragrance from an aerosol can. “Two things you need in this job,” she said. “A sense of humor and good air freshener.” Properly masked, gowned and gloved, Kee drops a scoop of the sample into a cheap Hamilton Beach blender and mixes it with salt water to produce what she calls “liquid gold.” Each blender gets used only once. When the mixture reaches the right consistency, she pours it through a gauze filter, and then fills more than a half dozen huge syringes. These go to Schneider, who uses them to transfer the healthy material into a sedated patient as part of a colonoscopy. “There’s a big ‘ick’ factor” to the job, Kee said. She lost a few assistants who couldn’t stand the smell. But Kee embraces her reputation as “the Princess of Poop” and keeps her focus on the patients. “You’re helping people,” she said. Screening process is key These transplants are not new. Veterinarians have long used them to treat gut trouble in cows and horses. And the Chinese used fecal therapy for humans as far back as the fourth century. But the New England Journal report, published in January, was the first to compare fecal transplants to antibiotics. Of 16 C. diff patients who received the transplants, 13 were cured after one infusion; two more after a second. The results were no surprise to Dr. Colleen Kelly, a gastroenterologist at Brown University, who has used fecal transplants since 2007, treating 98 patients and curing 95 percent. Kelly and Brandt are heading the first U.S. randomized, controlled clinical trial. Of 48 patients, half will get transplants from donors, half will get their own feces (with C. diff). Kelly pushed for a study so the therapy can be approved by the FDA, standardized for use in all patients and monitored for adverse outcomes. Only with monitoring can doctors detect serious side effects, Kelly said. For now, she said, it’s almost unethical not to offer the transplant because it has worked so well in so many patients and with few side effects. “By the time they come to me, they’re so desperate they would do anything,” she said. Some people have even been known to try the procedure at home, by mixing up a donor sample and infusing it like an enema. One important consideration, Kelly said, is proper screening of donors for HIV, hepatitis and other infectious diseases that could be spread to transplant recipients. The best donors are healthy people who haven’t taken antibiotics for at least 90 days. Most patients choose family members, but donors don’t have to be relatives. Already, some doctors use frozen, instead of fresh, samples that are thawed before transplantation. Brandt predicts a day when all the right organisms will be identified and produced in capsule form. “Nobody’s going to be using stool in five years,” he said. A cure for misery In Charlotte, Schneider’s fourth patient was Jan Bleavins, a grandmother of nine who had her transplant Dec. 3. Over the years, Bleavins has survived colon cancer, breast cancer and shoulder replacement surgery. But her struggle with C. diff was “right up there,” she said. “This wiped out pretty much six months of my life.” Last June, after several days of extreme diarrhea, Bleavins ended up in the emergency room. “My son actually carried me to the car. I was so weak,” she said. She took intravenous antibiotics but didn’t get better. In the next two months, she was back in the ER twice and took two different oral antibiotics. The final prescription, a four-week dose of vancomycin, cost $6,000. She paid $4,000 out of pocket, and insurance paid the rest. But she still wasn’t better. That’s when she was referred to Schneider, who suggested the transplant. “That sounds different,” Bleavins thought. But after reading more on the Internet, she agreed to do it. Her daughter came with her to the hospital to be her donor. Bleavins had the transplant on a Tuesday, and “by the weekend, I was great,” she said. “I had my energy back.” She wishes she’d known about the procedure earlier, to save a lot of time and expense. That’s why she agreed to speak publicly about what many would consider an embarrassing experience. “It’s rather personal, you know, but I’m just interested in passing the word,” she said. “If it would help to stamp this out sooner, that would be great.” Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/09/3968884/charlotte-medical-team-mixes-unusual.html#storylink=cpy

Lack of common sense? It was reported at the time that numerous people had seen the driver hanging out at the hotel and drinking for quite a while, just before taking the wheel, so that part at least seems beyond rebuttal by conspiracy theorists.

I don't think so. Please. Let us be proper and British and Latinate, and spell it fæces. I saw a hilarious article in the local paper a few weeks ago about a lab that prepares exactly that, for the purpose you describe. Also for repopulating gut bacteria after severe diarrhea, etc. The technician they interviewed told all about the smells they have to put up with, and how they use a kitchen blender that is carefully reserved for only that use!

I wouldn't hold my breath.

...whatever you do, DON'T look here: http://www.boytoy.com/forums/index.php?/topic/15494-scat/

As noted above, their driver was drunk and speeding. Then the ambulance driver is who really killed her by driving slowly to the hospital so as not to jounce her around, as is French practice apparently, whereas US and British practice is to get the patient to hospital at top speed. Unclear where the suspicion would be?

The founding fathers, having participated in the struggle against arbitrary power, comprehended some eternal truths respecting men and government. They knew that those who are entrusted with power are susceptible to the disease of tyrants, which George Washington rightly described as "love of power and the proneness to abuse it." For that reason, they realized that the power of public officers should be defined by laws which they, as well as the people, are obligated to obey; a truth enunciated by Daniel Webster when he said that "whatever government is not a government of laws is a despotism, let it be called what it may." Sen. Sam Ervin

Jefferson thought the price of freedom was for every generation to make its own revolution and start anew. I am beginning to think he was onto something.

Do you finally see why we are bitching and moaning about all this outrageously illegal behavior by governments?

Angela Merkel, the queen of Europe As Germany gears up for elections next month, Daniel Johnson explains how a dowdy chemist has fashioned herself into one of the world’s most respected – and influential – politicians Angela Merkel on the election trail last week. If there is one word to characterise the German Chancellor, it is decency The Telegraph 9:59PM BST 18 Aug 2013 Angela Merkel is riding high. As she returns from holiday to hit the campaign trail for the German elections – making a swing today through the south-east – she is not only her country’s most popular leader for a generation, but arguably the most respected politician in the world. How has this unflashy East German scientist – who disdains glitz and glamour to the point that when she wears a new dress in public it draws comment – succeeded in scaling the heights of international politics? There is a mystery about Mrs Merkel: she succeeds by being a woman seemingly without mystery. Unlike the Iron Lady, she rarely uses her feminine qualities to beguile men or impress women. Her natural habitat is not the public platform; she doesn’t tweet or text about anything and everything in the news. Intensely private, she comes across as unpretentious and incorruptible. That is why Silvio Berlusconi, as vain as Mrs Merkel is modest, did not know what to do when they clashed, except to whisper sexist obscenities behind her back. Next month, on September 22, Germany goes to the polls in what has become virtually a referendum on Mrs Merkel – and she is on course to win a third term of office. Her Christian Democrats are polling at around 40 per cent, twice as much as the Social Democrat opposition. It should be enough to win by a landslide, but under Germany’s proportional representation system, she will still need a coalition partner. The Free Democrats, her present allies, are struggling to cross the 5 per cent threshold to stay in parliament, but Christian Democrats will probably use their second preference votes to keep them in government. Assuming Mrs Merkel can forge a coalition of some sort, she will boast a record matched by only two of her postwar predecessors: Konrad Adenauer, who restored respect for the Germans, and Helmut Kohl, who reunited them. Though Adenauer created her political creed, Christian Democracy, and Kohl was Mrs Merkel’s mentor, they were both patriarchs in a patriarchal society. Their 59-year-old successor has turned her satirical nickname of “Mutti” (“Mummy”) – she has no children – into a badge of honour. Sensitive to history in a nation understandably suspicious of charismatic leadership, she has cultivated an unthreatening, homely, even dowdy image that delights voters but infuriates her (mainly male) colleagues and opponents. Her style is in some ways more like the Queen’s than Mrs Thatcher’s: she has a no-nonsense manner, but is rarely divisive and never dictatorial. As her enemies have found, however, she is definitely not to be underestimated. On the world stage, she owes her clout not just to the country she represents – although Ingolstadt, where she speaks at a rally today, is the home of Audi, a potent symbol of Germany’s industrial prowess. Nor is it entirely down to her lacklustre rivals for the leading role, even though Barack Obama’s mishandling of Egypt and Syria has already left him looking like a lame duck, Vladimir Putin seems to relish playing the pantomime villain, and the hapless François Hollande is even more unpopular than his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy. No, the truth of the matter is that, if there is one word to characterise Angela Merkel, it is decency. The daughter of a Lutheran pastor, she comes from the tradition that gave us the sacred music of Bach, Handel and Brahms. She stands for a Germany that shoulders its responsibilities as primus inter pares in Europe. On the world stage, she does not carry a big stick – the German military has not covered itself with glory in Afghanistan – but her integrity, intelligence and insight lend her words weight. When Mrs Thatcher spoke, the world listened. So it is with Mrs Merkel. In an interview last week, for example, she gave notice that the EU might have to “give something back” to nation states. What this might mean was left deliberately vague. But for a German leader, hitherto seen as an arch-federalist, to talk openly about restoring powers to national governments is unprecedented. It suggests that something is finally stirring in the eurozone’s undergrowth. What brought about this change of heart? David Cameron’s promise of a referendum on British membership was one of the factors. Another, which she explicitly mentioned last week, is the crisis in the Netherlands. Coalitions in Holland come and go but, unlike the British and Germans, the Dutch have yet to see their economy revive. Having had their liberal consensus rent apart by the loss of control over their borders, they have no appetite for “more Europe”. The Germans are keen to keep their neighbours in Holland as allies in their wrangles with the Latins to the south. If the price of Dutch support is a limited repatriation of powers from Brussels, Mrs Merkel will stump up. The third factor in Mrs Merkel’s calculus is an unfamiliar phenomenon: German Euroscepticism. Up to half of all Germans would ditch the euro and stop bail-outs tomorrow, polls suggest. This tide of opinion has given birth to a new party, Alternative for Germany. Mrs Merkel is determined to crush this upstart – she has noticed the damage that Ukip is doing to the British Conservatives – and her method is to steal its clothes. The trouble is that Europe is stuck with the euro and all that goes with it. The markets have been calmer since the Germans underwrote the European Central Bank’s promise to do “whatever is necessary” to prevent the continental banking system from collapsing. And some of the invalids are out of intensive care: Greece, for example, claims that it is on course to balance its budget this year, not counting interest and repayments. Yet the underlying problems of the eurozone have, if anything, become more acute as the gap widens between the Latin mendicants to the south and the Teutonic knights to the north. German exporters have done rather well under the single currency, having accumulated a trillion-dollar surplus with the eurozone, but the German taxpayer has had enough of equally astronomical bail‑outs. The continuing malaise of the Mediterranean nations has reinforced migration towards the more dynamic economies of Britain and Germany, which is putting pressure on public services and welfare budgets – hence the unaccustomed spectacle of Iain Duncan Smith visiting Berlin recently to make common cause with the Merkel government against the European Commission, which is trying to stop the British refusing migrants easy access to benefits. For Mrs Merkel and Mr Cameron alike, immigration and welfare have risen to the top of the political agenda, with voters poised to punish politicians seen as a soft touch. Of course, as in Britain, the German Left see things differently. For them, the big issue in this election is cyber-spying, with anti-American conspiracy theories emerging from the Snowden affair and wild comparisons made with the Gestapo and the Stasi. For a few years an internet protest party, the Pirates, briefly captured many of the young with promises of free downloading. But it has now sunk without trace, and Mrs Merkel is trusted to safeguard civil liberties by the great majority of Germans. Indeed, she was able to showcase not only her respect for individual freedom but her solidarity with the Jewish people, by rushing through a law to permit infant circumcision after a German court criminalised this ancient ritual. Dealing with the Nazi past, in fact, is another area on which she never puts a foot wrong: she is supportive of Israel, though not uncritically so, and insisted on the sale of submarines that have given the Jewish state a powerful new means of defence, especially against Iran. If Mrs Merkel does win a third term of office next month, she is likely to become Europe’s longest-serving female head of government. As such, she is a role model for women everywhere. Her statesmanship also bears comparison with the two grand old men of German politics, Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl. The latter, her old boss, held office for a record 16 years, and she would quite like to beat him. True, she’s been in office for eight years already, but she still has the energy to keep going – and having recently raised the retirement age to 67, she has plenty of time to reshape Germany, and Europe, before she departs the scene. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10251271/Angela-Merkel-the-queen-of-Europe.html

Two in one post!

Glenn Greenwald: Won't be silenced by detention By ASSOCIATED PRESS | 8/19/13 9:59 AM EDT LONDON — The American journalist who has published stories based on leaked documents from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden says he's going to be much more "aggressive" about printing stories now. That statement from journalist Glenn Greenwald comes after English authorities detained his partner under anti-terror legislation for nearly nine hours at Heathrow Airport in London. Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, arrived back in Rio de Janeiro on Monday, where the pair live together. Greenwald says he's going "to write much more aggressively than before, I'm going to publish many more documents than before." He added: "I'm going to publish many more things about England, as well. I have many documents about the system of espionage of England, and now my focus will be there, too." Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-95671.html#ixzz2cQU6kixG

Greenwald is not amused. Glenn Greenwald: detaining my partner was a failed attempt at intimidationThe detention of my partner, David Miranda, by UK authorities will have the opposite effect of the one intended Glenn Greenwald The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013 At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras, the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived in London this morning, he was detained. At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him. I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done. The Guardian has the full story here. Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian's lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David. We spent most of that time contemplating the charges he would likely face once the 9-hour period elapsed. According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders" (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, "most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour." An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours. The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. Worse, they kept David detained right up until the last minute: for the full 9 hours, something they very rarely do. Only at the last minute did they finally release him. We spent all day - as every hour passed - worried that he would be arrested and charged under a terrorism statute. This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us working journalistically on reporting on the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ. Before letting him go, they seized numerous possessions of his, including his laptop, his cellphone, various video game consoles, DVDs, USB sticks, and other materials. They did not say when they would return any of it, or if they would. This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples. If the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further. Beyond that, 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. David was unable to call me because his phone and laptop are now with UK authorities. So I don't yet know what they told him. But the Guardian's lawyer was able to speak with him immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant, and he asked the lawyer to convey that defiance to me. I already share it, as I'm certain US and UK authorities will soon see. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hoursDavid Miranda, partner of Guardian interviewer of whistleblower Edward Snowden, questioned under Terrorism Act Glenn Greenwald: a failed attempt at intimidation Guardian staff The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013 David Miranda, partner of Guardian interviewer of whistleblower Edward Snowden, questioned under Terrorism Act Glenn Greenwald: a failed attempt at intimidation Guardian staff The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013 Glenn Greenwald (right) and his partner David Miranda, who was held by UK authorities at Heathrow airport. Photograph: Janine Gibson The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals. The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles. Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden. While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. "This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere. "But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively." A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport. We are urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities." A spokesperson for Scotland Yard said: "At 08:05 on Sunday, 18 August a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was subsequently released at 17:00." Scotland Yard refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers that enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports. There was no comment from the Home Office in relation to the detention. However, there was surprise in political circles and elsewhere. Labour MP Tom Watson said he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention. He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect. "I think that we need to know if any ministers knew about this decision, and exactly who authorised it." "The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way." Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers. Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence. Last month the UK government said it would reduce the maximum period of detention to six hours and promised a review of the operation on schedule 7 amid concerns it unfairly targets minority groups and gives individuals fewer legal protections than they would have if detained at a police station. The government of Brazil issued a statement in which it expressed its "grave concern" over the detention of one of its citizens and the use of anti-terror legislation. It said: "This measure is without justification since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to the Brazilian citizen today are not repeated." Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy, said: "It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his partner has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance. "David's detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty, vindictive reasons. "There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analysing the data released by Edward Snowden." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow