Leaderboard

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

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.

Why does anyone think the "democracies" are not just "warming up" with their usurpation of freedoms? This sort of thing and worse has been going on for a very long time. Unfortunately I expect some to many in the general population who cannot or will not be bothered with being informed or doing something until too late but I have higher expectations from our group. The evidence is right in front of you everyday and still we just try to ignore it and go on. Best regards, RA1

Delightful. Good for you, ihpguy. If one wants the best, one always has to pay (one way or another,).

Andrew Sullivan didn't like this either! "A disclosure upfront: I have met David Miranda as part of a my friendship with Glenn Greenwald. The thought of his being detained by the British police for nine hours because his partner embarrassed the American government really sickens me at a gut level. I immediately think of my husband, Aaron, being detained in connection to work I have done – something that would horrify and frighten me. We should, of course, feel this empathy with people we have never known – but the realization is all the more gob-smacking when it comes so close to home. So of course my instinct is to see this exactly as Glenn has today... 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?

I found this very troubling. The British, along with the US, are making a mockery of freedom and democracy. Obama is such a disappointment, caught in his own lies about NSA snooping. More and more I think Snowden did us a favor by revealing the information that he had. Today's detainment seems pure harassment. What will be next? There is a fascinating article in today's NY Times Magazine on Laura Poitras, Snowden, and Glen Greenwald: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?ref=magazine

Msclelovr, Um, if you really do want the best, and if you are willing to pay for it, he will take your body to heaven, and send your mind south, he'll spoil you so bad, you'll hate every other guy you will ever touch, he'll put his mouth on your mouth, and his tongue on wherever you want it, he'll indulge your every fantasy, and then give you those fantasies one by one. All for you. Just for you. Has been for the past month. Yours, IHOP akaFavelaDweller

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

It is a new venue in Prague which will certainly replace Escape which became "shit" as they say in Prague. Wildboy is the place of the former Big Sister bar where men were coming to fuck girls for free as long as they accepted to have the session videoed and aired on internet. There are still some men coming, unaware of the changes and who leave, totally disgusted when they realize the place became a boybar. Yesterday was angel's night, meaning that many boys were wearing wings in their back. Many boys from Escape are here (Enrique, Claudio, Tomas, ...) and many new boys. From time to time a new boy or a couple of boys go to the small swimming pool in the nude and swim or wrestle in the nude in the water. Real hot. Normally, they would wank before entering the pool, so you know what you get ... I met a guy that I met in Escape a couple of years ago and who is stunning. Since week end has been full of boys (and full or rain), I just took his phone number for a future session. Wildboy is THE place to go now in Prague. It is not in the center, nor close to Temple and on the other side of the river (as Drakes is), but many boys, good atmosphere, reasonnable prices (no cover charge despite the shows and the number of boys). The "swimming pool". Sorry no boys at the time the pic was taken ..

Met this Gayromeo model this week end in Prague. Lovely lad. 19 years old. Always smiling. Recommended ! His sexy smile announces the whole program ...

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

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

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

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

How can an Arab, who most likely is a Muslim, allow his driver who has obviously been drinking to drive them anywhere? Even if he were the biggest drinking Arab in the world, why allow your driver to drink and drive? I like to drink. I do not like to drink and drive, so I don't and I am not very willing to get into a car with a driver who has been drinking. I really don't understand this whole thing, start to finish. When I was a boy we had an ambulance driver in MEM by the name of Jack Ruby. He was crazy in that he sped everywhere and had many accidents where he injured more folks than he delivered safely to a hospital, at least that is how the local newspapers characterized him. Regardless, he got a lot of tickets and notoriety, all deserved. At this late date, I have no idea of how many he "saved" by driving fast and recklessly to the hospital, which was his defense. However, TN law now says that only "certified" emergency vehicles can have immunity from traffic laws, meaning the fire department, the police department and the sheriff. Even all of them have "learned" to go slowly through a traffic signal that is red for their street. Our drivers are, unfortunately, that oblivious. It is strange to see an emergency vehicle with lights flashing and siren going full blast, slow down and carefully go through an intersection. However, I approve the method but not the offending cross traffic drivers. Best regards, RA1

I am a big fan of Hero and always get treated well there by the guys. Regular rooms are 600 baht. The VIP rooms are 1100 baht and are a lot larger and have things that some guys like like extra towels, Listerine, etc. I have had a few ask me what the VIP rooms look like so I thought I'd share with you with a little video. Sorry, I didn't notice my Thai masseur was answering all the questions as I was talking till I got home. I thought it was cute that he was having this conversation with me. As always, my weekend trips to Hero always provide me with a good time and good experience.

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

I regret I don't look at the Politics forum. The seizure of all the Brazilian's electronic devices surprised me, and what I wanted to point out to others here. This story was the leading item on BBC News today, with politicians expressing concern at the detention of the Brazilian under anti-terrorism legislation. One has asserted that no questions about terrorism were asked of the Brazilian. The UK has a system where a senior, independent lawyer reviews the workings of this legislation. On TV, he said that he found the application of this legislation to detain the Brazilian highly concerning and he would investigate it fully.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know(and much more important than comparisons between Putin and Cameron as to the crushing of civil liberties - prompted by Barry O'Bama's, by the way?) In the bedroom, who is the top and who is the bottom, who is the ass-smacker and who is the ass-smackee, do they call each other puto or the feminine form puta. And most important of all, especially for HITO, in the budoir does Glenn get all femmy and slip on his come-fuck-me pumps to grab the attention and ministrations of David, his Brasilieiro studmuffin? Yours, IHOP akaFavelaDweller

Here are three more of the 4th Jonas Brother - The Forgotten Sexy Gay Brasilian One. Kind of like the Andrews sisters, everyone knew about Patty, Maxine and LaVerne, but who ever heard of the 4th suster, Grazielli. Well, besides Joe, Kevin and Nick, here is Thiago. Yours, IHOP akaFavelaDweller

Ridiculous.

You joking?

Sexually, Jake was very good. He was strictly a bottom with me and very enthusiastic and verbal. I have seen his recent ads indicate versatile but I am not convinced he would top someone. Decent at kissing and excellent at oral. Met him when he was 20 and he is 23 at this point in time (with a few tats now). Even with my characterization of him being a bit "odd", I would consider hiring him again (perhaps to some extent I like the "bad boy" mystique). Quite coincidentally, last evening I got an email from him asking about setting up a session (we keep in contact every so often but haven't heard from him for several months). There is quite a bit of background on Jake in addition to the arrest and issues with Corbin Fisher, some of it good and some of it not so good. If you (or anyone else) would like more details about Jake (including his contact info for escorting), feel free to PM me.

Nice. But you forgot the most important detail: how skilled in bed and how ready to please is this 4th brother?

I actually hired Jake Lyons, prior to his arrest for battery and trespassing (but not much prior to it). He did seem to me to be a bit "odd" but hard to say exactly why, just a feeling I had at the time. He still pops up now and then on Rentboy.

Ahhhhh my list of future husbands! Thanks for the find JKane!

HOME MADE PROTEIN BARS (On A Budget) - Make High Protein Fudge Bars For less than 49 cents per bar! Ingredients (Makes 5 Bars) - 8 scoops chocolate protein powder - 1 cup oatmeal - 1/3 cup natural peanut butter - 3 tbsp honey - 1/2 cup 1% milk - 3 tbsp crushed peanuts Directions 1. Mix together the protein powder, oatmeal, peanut butter, honey and milk. 2. Form into 5 bars and then roll in the crushed peanuts to finish. 3. Place in the fridge for about 30-45 mins or until solid These are damn good tasting and can be made in under 5 minutes... Enjoy!

Likewise.