The first part of that statement is: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives."
Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.
Most lobbyists and activists aren't carrying around NSA documents.
If you carry documents that are uncovering a surveillance state you might endanger the lives on a few people relying on it. Still probably your goal is to improve privacy and long-term safety for the general population.
I think we should be way more careful with what we call terrorism. Democracy requires whistleblowing, free speech and critical perspectives on governments actions. Even if that means that this complicates some of the government's operations. The question is not just about safety but about commensurability.
The definition of terrorism that is implied is so vague and arbitrary that it seems that it can be attributed to almost any political process.
It's also worth remembering that Greenwald chose that quote to go in his article so would have chosen to put it in a context that emphasises his viewpoint.
I still don't understand why Miranda flew though the UK when he was carrying UK intelligence materials - still looks like a baited trap for publicity to me.