If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   David Gregory of Meet the Press asks Glenn Greenwald why he shouldn't be charged with a crime for reporting on NSA surveillance. Glenn Greenwald, in turn, asks David Gregory why he's such a terrible journalist   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 172
    More: Amusing, Glenn Greenwald, NSA  
•       •       •

3660 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2013 at 4:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-23 05:31:01 PM

StopLurkListen: Some people say that David Gregory is ignorant of all applicable laws, did no research, and is brainlessly parroting talking points fed to him by a producer.


which is why i wonder who he allegedly blew to get the meet the press gig. the man is worse than useless in the job. he is categorically incapable of asking hard questions and demanding answers. watching the show became an exercise in talking points. hell he spews them as much as his guests.

used to love meet the press and didn't dislike gregory. watched the first 4 shows maybe and haven't since.
 
2013-06-23 05:31:39 PM

StopLurkListen: Biological Ali: StopLurkListen: Don't be obtuse. You wrote "the crime would be [...] in soliciting", which means you are claiming there exists a law to indict and convict Greenwald.

Calm the fark down, re-read my comment AND the post I was responding to, and ask yourself if you still think that's what I was "claiming".

Biological Ali: "The crime would not be in writing the story, but in soliciting the original criminal actions (in this case, the leak)."

It's pretty clear what you're saying.


There's obviously not much I can say if you're not even willing to read one short paragraph. But since I'm in a good mood, I'll quote the post myself and save you the trouble:

Larry Mahnken: Freedom of the Press is not immunity.  If someone (Snowden) commits a crime and you report on what they give you, you have not committed a crime.  If you incite someone like him to commit a crime to get you information for your story, you *have* committed a crime.  (I'm not saying that this happened here, but the idea that a journalist cannot have committed a crime in writing a story is ridiculous.)


Now, here's the part where someone in your position would normally say something to the tune of "Well gee, I didn't realize that what you were talking about was completely different from what I thought you were talking about - sorry about that!"
 
2013-06-23 05:31:52 PM

whidbey: Whether Gregory is "gatekeeper" or not, I wouldn't be surprised if Greenwald weren't subpoenaed--if they even get around to arresting Snowden.


I really can't imagine a scenario where he wouldn't be subpoenaed.
 
2013-06-23 05:34:38 PM

Curious: StopLurkListen: Some people say that David Gregory is ignorant of all applicable laws, did no research, and is brainlessly parroting talking points fed to him by a producer.

which is why i wonder who he allegedly blew to get the meet the press gig. the man is worse than useless in the job. he is categorically incapable of asking hard questions and demanding answers. watching the show became an exercise in talking points. hell he spews them as much as his guests.

used to love meet the press and didn't dislike gregory. watched the first 4 shows maybe and haven't since.


Yeah I haven't watched Meet the Press at all with Gregory, he's ineffectual. I prefer Face the Nation, if anything, except that I'm also finding myself at odds with Bob Schieffer now on this issue as well. I like Schieffer, so that also sucks.
 
2013-06-23 05:36:03 PM

StopLurkListen: Biological Ali: The crime would not be in writing the story, but in soliciting the original criminal actions (in this case, the leak).

Citation needed. No, really. Cite the law.


18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter

I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.
 
2013-06-23 05:37:46 PM

Nabb1: So, d you think journalists who ask sources for information are soliciting?


If a crime is known to have been committed, and if it can be shown that the crime would not have been committed but for the journalist's actions (and that the journalist knew what he was doing) then there may be a case.

This is, of course, distinguished from the kind of leak where a journalist is approached by somebody intending on leaking information to someone, with the journalist being a passive recipient rather than solicitor.
 
2013-06-23 05:39:04 PM

Biological Ali: Nabb1: So, d you think journalists who ask sources for information are soliciting?

If a crime is known to have been committed, and if it can be shown that the crime would not have been committed but for the journalist's actions (and that the journalist knew what he was doing) then there may be a case.

This is, of course, distinguished from the kind of leak where a journalist is approached by somebody intending on leaking information to someone, with the journalist being a passive recipient rather than solicitor.


Most journalists who cover governmental affairs have regular sources.  Are you saying journalists should all be completely passive and do no investigating on their own?
 
2013-06-23 05:39:31 PM
And the "purpose aforsaid" is:

Reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation

Which would be an interesting point. If this information is not to the advantage of a foreign nation, but for non-state actors, do these provisions apply?
 
2013-06-23 05:42:21 PM
I've got way more respect for Greenwald than pretty much any pussy calling him/herself a journalist.  He may be an unpleasant individual and crass in his mannerisms, but he's actually doing something to confront the abuses of power that almost every FARKer left/right/center biatches about constantly...and CLAIMS to be upset about.

But when someone exposes (or helps to expose) those abuses, how quick so many of you Patriots are to label him a fool, a dick, a traitor...I'm truly surprised at how many FARKers left/right/center are falling right in line with federal government and their version of the situation.

Some fair-weather critics we got around here.  Some fkn pussies is what we got around here.
 
2013-06-23 05:43:42 PM

Nabb1: Most journalists who cover governmental affairs have regular sources.  Are you saying journalists should all be completely passive and do no investigating on their own?


I'm saying they should do whatever they want so long as they understand the laws and are prepared to deal with the consequences that can arise when they deal with criminals. Certainly the fact that someone was merely investigated in relation to a crime that's known to have been committed shouldn't be seen as some outrageous miscarriage of justice.
 
2013-06-23 05:44:02 PM

thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.


For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.
 
2013-06-23 05:45:17 PM
It's also interesting to see how divided we are on this Snowden issue, and that division has nothing to do with party affiliation. It's got me in a weird place, since I'm finding myself agreeing with hardcore teabaggers, although I can only imagine the teabaggers are pro-Snowden because he is making Obama look bad, and that's not what it's about at all with me of course.

Politics makes strange bedfellows sometimes.
 
2013-06-23 05:47:14 PM

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


For telling Americans what our government is doing to us.
 
2013-06-23 05:47:38 PM

make me some tea: since I'm finding myself agreeing with hardcore teabaggers,


See, to me that would take a total reality check. They're wrong about everything else. They've got to be out to lunch in some way on this one too.
 
2013-06-23 05:47:56 PM

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


Yes.  It is.
 
2013-06-23 05:48:37 PM
Someone ought to run the scenario where Obama shuts down all the intelligence operations.

I'd like to see Jon Stewart's take on that.
 
2013-06-23 05:49:26 PM
Dick Cheney has obviously hacked into bio ali's fark account.

Christ, I'm almost jealous of this ability to flip 180 degrees on a subject depending on whether the blues or the greens stood to gain in the current situation.
 
2013-06-23 05:49:54 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

For telling Americans what our government is doing to us.


I don't support jeopardizing the entire security of the US to achieve that.

We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.
 
2013-06-23 05:50:06 PM

Biological Ali: StopLurkListen: Biological Ali: StopLurkListen: Don't be obtuse. You wrote "the crime would be [...] in soliciting", which means you are claiming there exists a law to indict and convict Greenwald.

Calm the fark down, re-read my comment AND the post I was responding to, and ask yourself if you still think that's what I was "claiming".

Biological Ali: "The crime would not be in writing the story, but in soliciting the original criminal actions (in this case, the leak)."

It's pretty clear what you're saying.

There's obviously not much I can say if you're not even willing to read one short paragraph. But since I'm in a good mood, I'll quote the post myself and save you the trouble:

Larry Mahnken: Freedom of the Press is not immunity.  If someone (Snowden) commits a crime and you report on what they give you, you have not committed a crime.  If you incite someone like him to commit a crime to get you information for your story, you *have* committed a crime.


...and how is that different from what you're saying? Someone else said "A", and then you said "A", but your "A" is different?

thisispete: 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter


Thanks, but that statute is strictly related to national defense, so it doesn't apply. Unless we've gone completely '1984' bonkers and every government classified document pertains to "national defense". I'm not that pessimistic.
 
2013-06-23 05:53:35 PM
Biological Ali: Nabb1: Biological Ali: StopLurkListen: Biological Ali: The crime would not be in writing the story, but in soliciting the original criminal actions (in this case, the leak).

Citation needed. No, really. Cite the law.

Before I can give a specific answer, I need to know what exactly you're confused about. Do you think that merely writing the story would be a crime (in the US at least), or that it's legal to solicit specific criminal actions from others?


How do you define "solicit"?

Well, I would define it in this context as knowingly trying to get somebody to commit a specific crime, that one can reasonably believe wouldn't have been committed without your intervention.


AFAIK, that wasn't the case here. Greenwald was approached by Snowden with the story and initially rejected as not being credible and it wasn't until a third party re-introduced Snowden and vouched for his veracity that Greenwald even began to write it. Even then he picked and chose what was to be released.

All that noted, reporters solicit information all the time. Leaks from whistleblowers are the canaries in the coalmine that is journalism.

The watch dog press has increasingly become a lapdog press trading access for softball questions and in that climate someone like Greenwald sticks out like a sore thumb.

Can he come across at times as a smarmy self satisfied bastiche? Well yeah, but ya got to admit it takes a lot of balls and a pretty big ego to even contemplate breaking this particular story in the current environment.
 
2013-06-23 05:54:49 PM

Aarontology: Also, you'd think a journalist would understand New York Times Co. v. United States 1971


Silly, haven't you heard- only supporters of corporate tyranny would think the New York Times Company has constitutional rights. After all, the New York Times isn't a person.
 
2013-06-23 05:54:55 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: The only bias the media has is a pro-media bias.


They're just profit centers for the corporations that own them. And have been for a long time.


make me some tea: It's also interesting to see how divided we are on this Snowden issue, and that division has nothing to do with party affiliation. It's got me in a weird place, since I'm finding myself agreeing with hardcore teabaggers, although I can only imagine the teabaggers are pro-Snowden because he is making Obama look bad, and that's not what it's about at all with me of course.

Politics makes strange bedfellows sometimes.


We had a water fluoridation vote here recently. Hoo-boy howdy, talk about strange bedfellows.
 
2013-06-23 05:56:58 PM

StopLurkListen: ...and how is that different from what you're saying? Someone else said "A", and then you said "A", but your "A" is different?


Is there some reason you quoted the entirety of Larry Mahnken's post that I included in my comment, but left out the last sentence (the one in parentheses)? Can you not see it for some reason? Because that would explain a lot. Here, let me try and quote it again:

(I'm not saying that this happened here, but the idea that a journalist cannot have committed a crime in writing a story is ridiculous.)

He starts off by making the valid point that solicitation of a crime is itself (generally) illegal, even if you don't actually "do" the crime yourself. He then goes on to suggest that writing the story itself would also be illegal, and that was the point I was responding to, because merely writing the story is (as far as I know) not itself illegal at least in the US.
 
2013-06-23 05:57:45 PM

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.
 
2013-06-23 05:59:47 PM

Churchill2004: Aarontology: Also, you'd think a journalist would understand New York Times Co. v. United States 1971

Silly, haven't you heard- only supporters of corporate tyranny would think the New York Times Company has constitutional rights. After all, the New York Times isn't a person.


Is that where you're going to go with this from now on?
 
2013-06-23 06:01:20 PM

StopLurkListen: Gah. "Reporting on" classified information is not a crime. Having a "security clearance" and revealing classified information to those without a clearance is the crime.


You wouldn't want me on that jury. If he revealed too much, the public service I believe Snowden has done illustrates how the United States Government has exceeded rights given to it by the Constitution.  It may take 15 years for the matter to be settled, but if the Government is found to be wrong in the least, then Snowden could be seen to be justified in his whistleblowing.  Right now, I'm seeing a lack of motive for any of Snowden's alleged harm to the United States Government. The US Government will have to establish that motive as part of their eventual case against him.

The US. Government didn't even have their stuff together when trying to get the Hong Kong authorities to stop Snowden, as seen here
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201306/23/P201306230476.htm
HKSAR Government issues statement on Edward Snowden
***************************************************
     The HKSAR Government today (June 23) issued the following statement on Mr Edward Snowden:

     Mr Edward Snowden left Hong Kong today (June 23) on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel.

     The US Government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR Government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden. Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR Government has requested the US Government to provide additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request can meet the relevant legal conditions. As the HKSAR Government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.
 
2013-06-23 06:01:56 PM

thisispete: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.


Agreed. We use to chastise those countries behind the 'iron curtain' for actions/behavior like the U.S. Government is doing to it's own citizens these days.
 
2013-06-23 06:02:34 PM

thisispete: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.


Agreed.
 
2013-06-23 06:03:07 PM

quatchi: AFAIK, that wasn't the case here. Greenwald was approached by Snowden with the story and initially rejected as not being credible and it wasn't until a third party re-introduced Snowden and vouched for his veracity that Greenwald even began to write it. Even then he picked and chose what was to be released.


We're talking about different things here. In the video, Greenwald mentions the "criminalization of journalism" and goes on a mini-Gish Gallop where he references, among other things, the Fox guy who was investigated in relation to the North Korea leak. vpb was the first to catch on to that and rightly called Greenwald out for saying something very silly. That's how this discussion started out.

Then someone else asked about a hypothetical scenario on which Greenwald did solicit, and whether that would make him liable. So I responded to that as well, but that was obviously just a hypothetical with no claims being made about Greenwald himself.
 
2013-06-23 06:03:08 PM

whidbey: Churchill2004: Aarontology: Also, you'd think a journalist would understand New York Times Co. v. United States 1971

Silly, haven't you heard- only supporters of corporate tyranny would think the New York Times Company has constitutional rights. After all, the New York Times isn't a person.

Is that where you're going to go with this from now on?


As long as the anti-free-speech idjits continue to attack the 1A, yeah, I'll point out that they're attacking the 1A.
 
2013-06-23 06:06:36 PM

Churchill2004: whidbey: Churchill2004: Aarontology: Also, you'd think a journalist would understand New York Times Co. v. United States 1971

Silly, haven't you heard- only supporters of corporate tyranny would think the New York Times Company has constitutional rights. After all, the New York Times isn't a person.

Is that where you're going to go with this from now on?

As long as the anti-free-speech idjits continue to attack the 1A, yeah, I'll point out that they're attacking the 1A.


Um, I agree with the court case ruling. Using a post mentioning it to attack opponents of the Citizen's United ruling is more than a bit disingenuous, if not outright threadjacking.
 
2013-06-23 06:06:46 PM

Biological Ali: quatchi: AFAIK, that wasn't the case here. Greenwald was approached by Snowden with the story and initially rejected as not being credible and it wasn't until a third party re-introduced Snowden and vouched for his veracity that Greenwald even began to write it. Even then he picked and chose what was to be released.

We're talking about different things here. In the video, Greenwald mentions the "criminalization of journalism" and goes on a mini-Gish Gallop where he references, among other things, the Fox guy who was investigated in relation to the North Korea leak. vpb was the first to catch on to that and rightly called Greenwald out for saying something very silly. That's how this discussion started out.

Then someone else asked about a hypothetical scenario on which Greenwald did solicit, and whether that would make him liable. So I responded to that as well, but that was obviously just a hypothetical with no claims being made about Greenwald himself.


Just asking questions, huh?
 
2013-06-23 06:07:55 PM

StopLurkListen: Biological Ali: StopLurkListen: Biological Ali: StopLurkListen: Don't be obtuse. You wrote "the crime would be [...] in soliciting", which means you are claiming there exists a law to indict and convict Greenwald.

Calm the fark down, re-read my comment AND the post I was responding to, and ask yourself if you still think that's what I was "claiming".

Biological Ali: "The crime would not be in writing the story, but in soliciting the original criminal actions (in this case, the leak)."

It's pretty clear what you're saying.

There's obviously not much I can say if you're not even willing to read one short paragraph. But since I'm in a good mood, I'll quote the post myself and save you the trouble:

Larry Mahnken: Freedom of the Press is not immunity.  If someone (Snowden) commits a crime and you report on what they give you, you have not committed a crime.  If you incite someone like him to commit a crime to get you information for your story, you *have* committed a crime.

...and how is that different from what you're saying? Someone else said "A", and then you said "A", but your "A" is different?

thisispete: 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter

Thanks, but that statute is strictly related to national defense, so it doesn't apply. Unless we've gone completely '1984' bonkers and every government classified document pertains to "national defense". I' ...


well, in tennessee and florida it's considered terrorism to complain about the water supply

so yes, we've gone off the rails
 
2013-06-23 06:10:51 PM

thisispete: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.


Agreed.

Still Snowden compromised national security and put this country at risk by leaking some of the most important classified information we have.

At any rate, the unrealistic hope here seems to be that Snowden not be charged with breaking the law himself. I really don't see where there would be amnesty.
 
2013-06-23 06:14:36 PM

Nabb1: Just asking questions, huh?


Take it up with Larry Mahnken if it really bothers you that much.
 
2013-06-23 06:14:54 PM

whidbey: I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.


I'll wait for a logical argument on this.  Because if this case causes a Supreme Court ruling (and I have ever reason to believe it will) then it will end up being a long term benefit to the United States.

Of course, the US Govt. may claim that they can't tell the public how much of the United States Public is being scrutinized without a due legal process, or better still they will lie about how much they are actually actively spying on Americans without warrants with the Catch-22 worthy logic of "if they tell us how much warrantless searching they are doing, it lets everybody else know how much they can do, and so we can't tell them we're doing any warrantless searching".

I am so far from the tin foil hat wearing types it's not even funny. But I'm a child of the Watergate era, a time when political powers attempted to spy on the other side.

I would not be surprised one bit if citizen Barack Obama was spied upon by the government without a warrant when he was running for the Senate in 2004.
 
2013-06-23 06:16:02 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

For telling Americans what our government is doing to us.

I don't support jeopardizing the entire security of the US to achieve that.

We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.


So you claim that Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, yet somehow harmed national security? Do tell.
 
2013-06-23 06:17:29 PM

whidbey: thisispete: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.

Agreed.

Still Snowden compromised national security and put this country at risk by leaking some of the most important classified information we have.

At any rate, the unrealistic hope here seems to be that Snowden not be charged with breaking the law himself. I really don't see where there would be amnesty.


Like terrorists didn't know we were listening in on their conversations.
 
2013-06-23 06:22:58 PM

SVenus: whidbey: I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country..


It's not logical to make the case that Snowden breached national security?
 
2013-06-23 06:23:51 PM
img.fark.net
MSM cretins like David Gregory and Chris Matthews aren't journalists. They are the "HAIL ANTS" type of media sellouts who have long ago thrown their dignity and sense of morality down the sewers in return for "access" to the powerful and elite.

They are not journalists. They are paparazzi.
 
2013-06-23 06:24:59 PM

Magruda: We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.

So you claim that Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, yet somehow harmed national security? Do tell.


Pretty sure we didn't "know" the details from pages and pages of classified documents, and yeah, it's a breach of security to attempt to have them published.

You're really not trying to argue against this? If so, why?
 
2013-06-23 06:28:18 PM

whidbey: thisispete: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

Given that I'm a New Zealander, my loyalties don't lie with the United States, anyway. But mass surveillance is not a sign of a free and democratic society.

Agreed.

Still Snowden compromised national security and put this country at risk by leaking some of the most important classified information we have.

At any rate, the unrealistic hope here seems to be that Snowden not be charged with breaking the law himself. I really don't see where there would be amnesty.


He should have made his point by leaking trivial, unclassified information...
 
2013-06-23 06:28:25 PM

whidbey: SVenus: whidbey: I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country..

It's not logical to make the case that Snowden breached national security?


Absolutely a logical case to make.  What would his alleged motive for this breach?
 
2013-06-23 06:30:12 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.

For telling Americans what our government is doing to us.

I don't support jeopardizing the entire security of the US to achieve that.

[citation needed]

We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country. [citation needed]

Those are the exact same arguments that were made about Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and Manning with Wikileaks. In both those cases the leaker was a threat to the interests of state power, not the security of US citizens. Are you of the opinion that the only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to engage in spying on citizens accused of no crimes?

Maybe I'm the one who's wrong here, and the government will do a perfect job in self-regulating itself with tremendous data gathering powers.

For some reason, I am reminded of former Attorney General John Ashcroft. While vilified by liberals during his tenure, I find it odd that so many critics of Bush-era policies may actually now find themselves his allies.

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

Because, truly, it would be a shame for people to "remain silent in the face of evil."
 
2013-06-23 06:32:18 PM
Why shouldn't David Gregory have been charged with possessing an illegal 5mm/.223 magazine in DC?
 
2013-06-23 06:32:59 PM
"To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?" he asked.

If that art were true, he would have a point. First Amendment protection doesn't mean that you can hide fugitives or assist them in escaping.

But until that IS established, then it still is god journalism to cover this story, and the other dud e can fark off.
 
2013-06-23 06:34:11 PM

propasaurus: gimmegimme: Greenwald is a jerk.  As Gregory knows, journalism is when you ask politicians what is happening and report what they say verbatim.

Not to defend Gregory, he is a terrible journalist. But Greenwald is a jerk.


As much as Greenwald is a jerk, he does have a point here.

Hell, a few news cycles ago, we were all yelling about how the same people who are wondering if Greenwald is complicit in treason were yelling their heads off that the ebil gubmint was spying on them 'cuz they wanted their phone records. Yet another example of someone trying to have it both ways in this instance.
 
2013-06-23 06:34:18 PM

whidbey: Magruda: We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.

So you claim that Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, yet somehow harmed national security? Do tell.

Pretty sure we didn't "know" the details from pages and pages of classified documents, and yeah, it's a breach of security to attempt to have them published.

You're really not trying to argue against this? If so, why?


So the details are the most damaging part of the leaks? That makes no sense.
 
2013-06-23 06:43:20 PM

SVenus: whidbey: SVenus: whidbey: I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country..

It's not logical to make the case that Snowden breached national security?

Absolutely a logical case to make.  What would his alleged motive for this breach?


You don't need a motive. What he did put the system at risk.
 
2013-06-23 06:44:12 PM

Magruda: whidbey: Magruda: We already knew well before Snowden did his thing that there were Constitutional issues with what the NSA is doing. I don't consider him a hero, but someone who broke his confidentiality and in so doing became a threat to this country.

So you claim that Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, yet somehow harmed national security? Do tell.

Pretty sure we didn't "know" the details from pages and pages of classified documents, and yeah, it's a breach of security to attempt to have them published.

You're really not trying to argue against this? If so, why?

So the details are the most damaging part of the leaks? That makes no sense.


What makes no sense is that you seem to think he should be given a pat on the back and a medal for what he did.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report