Another inconsistency: check out Greenwald's original write-up [1]
> 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 [...] said David was not
> allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow
> me to talk to him.
But then, in the report on Greenwald's detention [2]:
> He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he
> refused both because he did not trust the authorities.
Let's be honest: if the official was lying, Greenwald would have pointed it out. So why didn't he? Greenwald just presumes that I'll believe him since he's so much more trustworthy than a sinister figure on the end of a phone. That presumption must end.
He was smart to refuse the lawyer, but Greenwald's assertion that Miranda was not allowed a lawyer present was not actually grounded in reality. This whole thing stinks.
There's a big difference between being offered a lawyer and being offered to call your lawyer. If he was not allowed to call a lawyer of his choosing then he was not allowed to have a lawyer present. A lawyer provided by the government is just another agent of the government in the room.
Since many law enforcement agents at the federal level (in the US at least) happen to also be lawyers then, by your logic, there is already a lawyer present. No need to get another one involved.
There's no logic involved: Greenwald said something that wasn't true (whether that something came from him or the official who spoke with him is not yet clear). Then the closer you look, the more emerges: Miranda in his later interview said "I don't have a role" but then Rusbridger admitted this morning that he did have a role. Rusbridger then insisted that Miranda "was not a journalist" but assisted his partner in "journalistic work". If the NSA's position fell apart under such basic cross-examination, we'd be all over it, so why do these guys get a free pass?
If you don't know where the statement originated then you don't know enough to state that it is untrue. Either way, I still have no problem with the statement. We are essentially arguing over semantics at this point. You say any lawyer will do, I say it has to be a lawyer of his choosing.
I fail to see how several different people making a statement about the man's level of involvement in the reporting is relevant to anything. The man says he has no involvement so anybody else stating otherwise is mistaken. What's the relevance to what's being reported?
You're complaining about it; we're discussing it; I fail to see the free pass they have supposedly received.
