August 22, 2013 at 9:17 A.M. Despite great obstacles I was able to post this text from a public computer yesterday. I expected far worse, but only a single line was altered in terms of the size of the lettering of this text. I expect additional and continuing defacements of this essay in the days ahead. I also anticipate further censorship and cybercrime efforts directed against me or anything that I write. I regret that due to all the interference and obstacles to my writing, my review of "Elysium" is proceeding slowly. I will do my best to repair the harm done to this work.
August 21, 2013 at 8:45 A.M. I attempted to sign-in this morning at my lap-top computer in order to continue working on my review of "Elysium." My Internet connection was blocked -- despite the fact that I purchased and installed new equipment from Time/Warner that should preclude these experiences.
This is, of course, unless the service provider is required to "cooperate" (as the Guardian newspaper was required to "cooperate" with destruction of their hard drives) with those obstructing my connection for some reason. These obstructions reveal government involvement in crimes committed against me. ("How censorship works in America.")
I can only surmise that obstructions such as I experienced this morning -- this is censorship that affects others beside myself -- is based on the content of my opinions and ideas. The First Amendment's core notion that political and philosophical speech should be immune from government suppression or control seems to be a casualty of the "War on Terror." The loss of my fundamental Constitutional and moral rights is the potential loss of all other persons' rights in America.
Disdain and disregard for my family members and ALL recipients of these texts, the use of my concern for their pain and suffering or welfare as a means of pressuring or intimidating me, is worthy of Stalin. For as long as I am able to do so, I will continue to write from some location in this city. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
Psychological torture and government use of terror tactics has come to define America today as a frightened and, therefore, oppressive state in flight from its core principles of law. U.S. intolerance of intelligence and dissent is something new under the sun. Anyone with a child must be frightened for the future. Persons subjected to psychological and other tortures in our world are terrified about what may come next.
I will struggle to continue writing. Please beware that, at any time, my essays may simply fail to appear or will be destroyed. They have already been stolen on more than one occasion. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
Chris Buckley, "China Takes Aim at Western Ideas," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A1. (The explicitly voiced concern with Western "Nihilism" is very interesting. The philosophical appeal of forms of hermeneutic theory in China is fascinating.)
Erin Banco, "Suicides Worry Experts at Big Jail in Capitol," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A11. (Growing numbers of suicides in response to conditions that can only be described as forms of psychological torture akin to concentration camp status: "Foucault, Rose, Davis, and the Meanings of Prison" and "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
Steven Erlanger, "Britons Question Whether Detention of Reporter's Partner Was Terror-Related," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A6. (Article featured a subtle anti-gay slur in a "confusion of gender" terminology by which Mr. Greenwald, perhaps, was referred to, first, as "he"; second, as "she." This point has not been noticed by commentators on the controversy: " ... Mr. Greenwald said that he needed material from Ms. Poitras for articles he was working on related to the N.S.A., and that he had things she needed." The ambiguities in this sentence -- does "he" refer to Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald, Ms. Poitras, or does "she" refer to any or all of these persons -- may be read as an insult to Mr. Greenwald and to all gay men. I believe the ambiguity is deliberate.)
Charlie Savage, "N.S.A. Calls Violations of Privacy 'Miniscule,'" The New York Times, August 17, 2013, p. A12. (Gathering personal information about persons from all over the world is "miniscule.")
Charlie Savage & Michael Schuritz, "Britain Detains the Partner Of a Reporter Tied to Links," The New York Times, August 19, 2013, p. A4. (U.S. asks Britain to detain and harass a dissident journalist's partner.)
Charlie Savage, "Facial Scanning Is Making Gains In Surveillance," The New York Times, August 21, 2013, p. A1. (Facial recognition spyware, which is subject to much inaccuracy, will be used to scan crowds for "suspicious" faces, few of which will be caucasian.)
Steven Erlanger, "British Newspaper Has Advantages in Battle With Government Over Secrets," The New York Times, August 21, 2013, p. A6. (The Guardian forced to destroy hard drives with DUPLICATED Snowden-provided information.)
Yesterday evening on Anderson Cooper's program on CNN (a show appropriately entitled "Anderson Cooper"), Mr. Jeffrey Toobin (a spokesperson for America's legal establishment whose prose sometimes appears in The New Yorker), commented that Mr. Miranda was a possible "mule." Hence, the British government's actions could be reasonable or justifiable.
This statement by Mr. Toobin is false on its face in terms of he applicable British law. I was shocked that this word "mule," which is associated with drug curriers for the major cartels, was allowed to go unchallenged by other participants in this conversation.
A mule is an expendable member of a criminal organization "used" to carry something dangerous. As a criminal once said to me, there are people who will carry a live grenade -- with the pin pulled -- for a small fee, or out of fear.
However, a "mule" is also an anti-gay slur to describe a man who enjoys anal penetration. I doubt that Mr. Toobin was fully aware of this connotation, but whoever supplied the talking point to him (I am sure that someone did) is likely to have been quite well aware of what Mr. Toobin was being made to say.
Like every Latino in the audience, I was appallled at the insult of Mr. Miranda. I am also doubtful that, if Mr. Greenwald's partner were named, say, John Roberts, he would have been dismissed so casually as a "mule."
Mr. Toobin used the word "mule" about ten times in a conversation that lasted a few minutes. Perhaps the term was supplied to Mr. Toobin by a friend from South Beach, Miami, or in Florida's G.O.P. circles. The terminology is common in criminal courtrooms in states with major drug problems, like Florida, but less easily recognized elsewhere. What is all of this about?
"David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian citizen and partner of the American journalist [and attorney] Glen Greenwald, who lives in Brazil was held Sunday at London's Heathrow Airport for nine hours; the maximum allowed by law, before being released without charge. He said Monday that all of his electronic equipment, including his lap-top computer and cellphone, had been confiscated."
Confiscated for what reason? On the basis of what crime or charge was the property seized as evidence? Was Mr. Miranda COMPENSATED financially for his material property loss and emotional suffering, for the loss of liberty or effects of what amounts to a kidnapping by the police, since he was not asked about terrorism, which is the only basis under British law for such a detention? Was the American government, despite its denials, behind this brutal and offensive incident aimed at intimidating or "paying back" Mr. Greenwald for his reporting?
Along with most British people questioned about this matter, I believe that this detention, far from being a mistake or sound police work based on a suspicion of Mr. Miranda being a "mule" for the drug cartels (which would be irrelevant under the terrorism law), or an agent of Chinese intelligence, is a blatant attempt to intimidate a dissident.
Much the same may be said, for example, of attempts to harm the daughter of a man writing Internet essays detailing corruption in an American jurisdiction and the criminality of the tortures at Guantanamo. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System" then "American Doctors and Torture.")
This ugly episode in London may also be an attempt to shape future journalism by Mr. Greenwald in order to make future writings "friendlier" to the U.S. government. The effect on Mr. Greenwald may be the opposite of what the government intends.
Mr. Greenwald must take care NOT to allow understandable anger, outrage, and disgust at this treatment of his loved-one who is an innocent person, not a British or U.S. citizen, to affect Mr. Greenwald's public statements (which may have been another goal here for the forces of darkness) because the U.S. government will seek to dismiss any subsequent journalism that "he" produces, whatever evidence supports "his" contentions, by claiming that the journalist is "biased" or a "hothead."
Perhaps Mr. Greenwald will be dismissed as "delusional" or "alcoholic." Objectivity in journalistic accounts of events is reserved for "Manohla Dargis" or "Jennifer Shuessler" (or other fictitious names) at the "Times," or for Mr. O'Reilly on something called: "FOX News."
A society that finds it necessary to frighten or harm innocent people, to alter or deform written texts, obstruct Internet connections in order to silence critics -- such a society has lost the moral high ground in the so-called "War on Terror" by using terror against its own people, including children and old people. By creating categories of "unpersons" (George Orwell), for all dissidents, America has diminished its once unique moral status and worth in the community of nations.
"The police said in a statement that Mr. Miranda, 28, had been lawfully detained under schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act 2000, which allows them to stop and question people traveling through airports to determine whether they are involved in planning terrorist acts."
No one asked Mr. Miranda about "terrorist" acts. The length of the questioning may have -- and probably did -- allow for "suggestion" under hypnosis which Mr. Miranda would not necessarily realize or remember.
I suggest to this young man, Mr. Miranda, that he be on the look-out for telltale signs of "interrogational hypnosis" or "interrogational drugging" (especially if he was given food or drink during his nine hours) that may emerge over the next few days or weeks. (See the sources listed in the introduction to "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
Mr. Greenwald has probably been subjected to monitoring of various kinds and will experience much worse in the weeks and months ahead. Like Mr. Greenwald, I am sure, I prefer to endure attacks myself rather than to see innocent loved-ones suffer or be subjected to torture. ("Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "Legal Ethics Today.")
I fear that Mr. Greenwald may face legal ethics charges soon if he is not already dealing with an ethics investigation by the American Bar Association.
