How would that notification go?
"Hey guys, we're going to bully the boyfriend of a reporter for you. High five?"
"Hey guys, we're going to bully the boyfriend of a reporter for you. High five?"
My sense is that if they're going after Greenwald's hubby, they don't really know what to do about all this. They certainly don't want any focus on the past, since they can't help but lie about it (and later be exposed for doing so), so this makes the story about "today." That means the governments can (finally) be the source of information in the story, rather than being wrongfooted as the subject. The western governments really don't seem to like the spotlight these days, but we'll see if they can convert this story to one favorable to them, if even for a couple of days until Greenwald/Gellman/Sanchez/etc.'s next story.
We're through the looking glass now. Our governments (no Western government is exempt here) are operating in a way that closely resembles the regimes of the former Eastern Bloc, and they are making no attempts to hide it anymore. That's the scary part.
Revoking a citizens passport? Blocking attempts to seek asylum? Forcing down a plane of a foreign, democratically elected leader of a country? Detaining the boyfriend of a reporter under false pretenses? None of this is happening in secret anymore. And it's no longer "them", the anonymous evil "terrorists", the "enemy combatants" that cannot be fought by conventional means. They've turned on us now.
I wouldn't be too sure anymore they aren't planning to go "full retard". They obviously have no shame, and no fear of consequences.
I'm also amused by just how hard these reporters seem to even avoid pronouns or other language that would indicate his gender. Strikes me as really really odd.
I wonder if the media and/or government(s) were bending over backwards to make damn sure no one could be accused of homophobia. Dunno about the US, but in the UK, if there were the slightest smell of homophobia, a whole new can of worms would have been opened. The gay rights folk would have, rightly IMHO, exploded, with quite a lot of public support. Oddly, I reckon if this had been some how made a gay issue, the government would have been in a lot more trouble. Last thing this UK government in particular wants is any more controversy over gay rights issues. Lining it to the spying would be both explosive, and kinda 1960's traditional!!!
Or perhaps some credit is due in that some parts of the media have simply grown up, and the gay part really is a non issue. Which would be a good thing.
You know they government has fucked this up when even the Daily Mail writes an article that sympathetic about terror law abuses directed at a gay couple closely linked to the Guardian.
>Partner is the only gender neutral way of expressing this thought
Not really. Significant other does the job fine and cannot be confused with a business partner.
This angle of understanding is now clearly incorrect.
Now I have to go and look up whether or not Miranda is a Guardian reporter, for instance, because that's an assumption I made that may not be true after all.
On the other hand, my dad is a business owner and I've had people assume he was gay when I referred to his co-owner as "his partner, Jeff".
"When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
You see, if he were carrying stolen documents, someone at Booze Hamilton would be saying "shiiit, that manilla folder with the post-it saying important stuff, don't lose got stolen!".
If someone tells you a secret, hd might be a hero or a villain... but a thief he is not!