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  
•       •       •

3659 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 06:46:47 PM

whidbey: 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.


Exposing our government's violation of the constitution? No, no metal for him he did what every citizen should have done.
 
2013-06-23 06:50:26 PM

Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.


Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.
 
2013-06-23 06:51:57 PM

whidbey: 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.


And if the system is more damaging to society than anything it could protect us from, then what?
 
2013-06-23 06:55:22 PM

FuturePastNow: whidbey: 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.

And if the system is more damaging to society than anything it could protect us from, then what?


You're talking "if." Someone still broke into the vault and did put the system at risk.
 
2013-06-23 06:57:29 PM

whidbey: Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.

Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.


How did he put this country at risk if we already knew what he released?
 
2013-06-23 06:58:10 PM

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


We've gotten to point where more and more people realize the state exerts  its best efforts to protect itself. Citizens.....not so much.

I would prefer to know what the government is doing regardless of "legality". It's in our best interest but perhaps not theirs.
 
2013-06-23 07:02:08 PM

Magruda: whidbey: Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.

Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.

How did he put this country at risk if we already knew what he released?


We didn't know. We had an idea that some surveillance was being done. Come on, why are you still defending this obvious breach of security?

Do you really believe that no charges should be filed against Snowden? Making vague platitudes about what he did doesn't excuse the consequences of his actions. I guess I'm just not getting your system here.
 
2013-06-23 07:04:11 PM

whidbey: Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.

Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.


[Citation Needed]

You've based your entire argument on that assumption without a shred of evidence. Or is it just supposed to be some kind of self evident thing that should just be accepted without any kind of truth test?
 
2013-06-23 07:05:15 PM
I find Glenn Greenwald's response more canned speech than off-the-cuff. If Glenn Greenwald has enabled Snowden in anyway to avoid legitimate prosecution, that is not journalism but a crime. When "journalists" enable the story, like Fox News anchors leading a Tea Party group in chats in DC some years back, that's not journalism (nor a crime in the Fox News case). That's Fox News entertainment.

As for David Gregory asking the question, it's perfectly legit for a journalist to pose that question. Glenn's reply is basic attack the person asking the question you don't want to answer and deflect it.  Seen Glenn Greenwald's tactic used by politicians and Fox News commentators all the time.
 
2013-06-23 07:05:18 PM

whidbey: Magruda: whidbey: Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.

Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.

How did he put this country at risk if we already knew what he released?

We didn't know. We had an idea that some surveillance was being done. Come on, why are you still defending this obvious breach of security?

Do you really believe that no charges should be filed against Snowden? Making vague platitudes about what he did doesn't excuse the consequences of his actions. I guess I'm just not getting your system here.


A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
 
2013-06-23 07:07:13 PM
I view what Snowden did as an act of civil disobedience. I'm glad he did this so we could have a national debate on this issue. This kind of surveillance has been going on in some form for decades, though--the last time it came up was in<a data-cke-saved-href=" 2006 during the Bush Administration. They didn't even have blanket warrants!

What sets that leak apart from this one? Why didn't we see the massive outrage then that we do now? I think, in part, it's how this was revealed. Edward Snowden puts a recognizable face on this that Thomas Tamm did not. (Interestingly enough, the criminal investigation against Tamm stopped in 2011).

IMO, that Snowden fled the country makes this whole thing that much more dramatic--and we love drama. That's keeping the NSA's activities and FISA in public eye, where it belongs.
 
2013-06-23 07:11:49 PM

DeArmondVI: whidbey: Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.

Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.

[Citation Needed]

You've based your entire argument on that assumption without a shred of evidence. Or is it just supposed to be some kind of self evident thing that should just be accepted without any kind of truth test?


What exactly is it I need to "prove," here? What "truth test? "

Tell me why it should be acceptable to illegally release a bunch of highly-classified sensitive material ?
 
2013-06-23 07:13:31 PM

Magruda: Do you really believe that no charges should be filed against Snowden? Making vague platitudes about what he did doesn't excuse the consequences of his actions. I guess I'm just not getting your system here.

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower


Where in your definition does it say a "whistleblower" is immune from the laws of his country?
 
2013-06-23 07:18:02 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
 
2013-06-23 07:26:59 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-23 07:27:50 PM
This is the problem from somebody who claims that he's a journalist who would object to a journalist raising questions, which is not actually embracing any particular point of view

I think I have heard this kind of logic from birthers and evolution deniers.  "Well I don't have a dog in the race so I'm just asking questions here but why hasn't Obama proven he wasn't born in Kenya?"

"Well Mr. evolutionists, some might say that dinosaurs appeared in the Bible.  I'm just asking questions that others have raised and I am not strongly committed but why is it that evolution believers don't address the evidence for dinosaurs in the Bible?"
 
2013-06-23 07:29:13 PM

Magruda: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act


I dunno, your link also mentions a "weakening" of the Act when it was amended in 2009 and that government employees do not always have "protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties"

and

National Whistleblowers Center issued a statement on Re-Introduction of Whistleblower Protection Act, expressing their concerns that the Senate's [2009] WPEA bill provides the Merit Systems Protection Board with sweeping new powers to dismiss whistleblower cases without a hearing and to act as gatekeeper for court access.

So no, I kind of doubt that citing that makes your case. Yeah, I've kind of crossed the line from Devil's Advocate to Dick Cheney country, and I apologize...
 
2013-06-23 07:34:05 PM

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


Yes, our entire security apparatus will now fall apart because we know we're being wire tapped and spied upon. Thanks to Snowden, our guns don't work, our armies don't march, and our nukes don't 'splode.
 
2013-06-23 07:34:24 PM

whidbey: Magruda: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

I dunno, your link also mentions a "weakening" of the Act when it was amended in 2009 and that government employees do not always have "protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties"

and

National Whistleblowers Center issued a statement on Re-Introduction of Whistleblower Protection Act, expressing their concerns that the Senate's [2009] WPEA bill provides the Merit Systems Protection Board with sweeping new powers to dismiss whistleblower cases without a hearing and to act as gatekeeper for court access.

So no, I kind of doubt that citing that makes your case. Yeah, I've kind of crossed the line from Devil's Advocate to Dick Cheney country, and I apologize...


Either way, the reason I don't think he should be prosecuted is because much like Elsberg he did the public a service by exposing government illegality.
 
2013-06-23 07:40:05 PM
FFS.  Greenwald is the only journalist left doing his job in a professional manner.
 
2013-06-23 07:42:04 PM

whidbey: 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.


That's a bit like saying someone who shot and killed in self defense still needs to go to jail for the crime.
There's no motive except insanity for shooting a random person, but there is motive when that person is threatening you. Then there has to be a ruling of self defense.

If there is a ruling of "Whistleblowing" because it was ruled that Snowden believed the only way to show the Government was exceeding its Constitutional authority with respect to the First Amendment, and that was his one and only motive, it will be much like self defense.

If, in the case of shooting the guy with the gun pointed at you, you fire 15 bullets and kill three other innocent people, that would be grounds for some additional charges, perhaps.

If, in the case of releasing documents sensitive to the United States Government, Snowden released "too many" documents, that would be grounds for charges, true, using similar logic.

I understand the Government's wishes to bring Snowden in for prosecution.
But likewise, I understand the need to define what the Patriot Act and all related issues mean with regards to the Fourth Amendment and the affects on the First Amendment by suppressing freedom of speech.
Opening postal letter without a warrant is the precedent. Making a warrantless copy of any email of any private US citizen with the intent to read is a similar violation, in my mind, but probably not in codified law.  Yet.  Making phone records of who called whom should be considered a gray area, where it probably will be ruled legal, similar to the return address on a postal letter along with the address of the addressee.  But then that ruling invites private delivery services where it would NOT be legal to do such snooping.

In the long run, there are many issues that will have to be argued and addressed.

I have a feeling before this is done the Alien and Sedition Acts will be regarded many times by either side.
 
2013-06-23 07:43:47 PM

SVenus: Government was exceeding its Constitutional authority with respect to the First Amendment


Fourth.

/damn, can't count
 
2013-06-23 07:46:19 PM

whidbey: DeArmondVI: whidbey: Magruda: he did what every citizen should have done.

Except "every citizen" doesn't have the kind of security clearance and trust that was placed in him. He put this country at risk.

These are both indefensible positions.

[Citation Needed]

You've based your entire argument on that assumption without a shred of evidence. Or is it just supposed to be some kind of self evident thing that should just be accepted without any kind of truth test?

What exactly is it I need to "prove," here? What "truth test? "


Here is the axiom upon which your entire argument is based:

"He put this country at risk."

Do you have any evidence that "He put this country at risk" ? That's the same claim that was made against Ellsberg by the Federal Government regarding the Pentagon Papers. Outside of repeating that claim, they never actually showed any evidence to give any validity to it. At the present, it appears to be pretty much the same thing. Lots of people are repeating the line, but I am yet to actually come across a concrete example of how the leak "...put this country at risk."

Tell me why it should be acceptable to illegally release a bunch of highly-classified sensitive material ?

If, by releasing classified material, government wrongdoing is shown, then it serves the public interest (in whose service the government works for). To buttress my position further, if the release of the material has not "put this country at risk" then the only damage that has been done is to the powers of the federal government to spy on citizens suspected of no crime.

Just as in a court case, and in accordance with the values of our judicial system, one is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies in what evidence the accuser can show of wrongdoing. With that in mind, did his release of classified material put this country at risk? I can't say, because I haven't seen any evidence of it.  You have repeated that claim multiple times now, and so it only stands to reason that you must have some sort of evidence in order to have reached that conclusion.

There is, of course, the possibility that you have no evidence that "He put this country at risk" and prefer to base your argument on an unfounded assumption.

Paging Judith Miller!
 
2013-06-23 07:47:37 PM

AirForceVet: If Glenn Greenwald has enabled Snowden in anyway to avoid legitimate prosecution, that is not journalism but a crime.


And what hypothetical action are we referring to which breaks which hypothetical US law that has jurisdiction in Greenwald's current residence of Brazil or in Hong Kong?
 
2013-06-23 07:49:53 PM

DeArmondVI: You've based your entire argument on that assumption without a shred of evidence. Or is it just supposed to be some kind of self evident thing that should just be accepted without any kind of truth test?


In Whidbey's case, this is the case the Government is obviously alleged to have happened, thus the pursuit of Snowden.  The problem is, the people who know the truth best are the people hiding that same truth.
 
2013-06-23 07:55:33 PM

SVenus: If there is a ruling of "Whistleblowing" because it was ruled that Snowden believed the only way to show the Government was exceeding its Constitutional authority with respect to the First Amendment, and that was his one and only motive, it will be much like self defense.


Exactly, he saw what happened when people go through the chain of command to report wrongdoing. You get threatened with 35 years in prison..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#Drake_action_withi n_ the_NSA
 
2013-06-23 07:57:38 PM

SVenus: DeArmondVI: You've based your entire argument on that assumption without a shred of evidence. Or is it just supposed to be some kind of self evident thing that should just be accepted without any kind of truth test?

In Whidbey's case, this is the case the Government is obviously alleged to have happened, thus the pursuit of Snowden.  The problem is, the people who know the truth best are the people hiding that same truth.


Perhaps it was that whole "we got lied into war" thing that has me just a bit skeptical about government assertions given without evidence, on the assumption that the evidence for their assertions is classified.

colinpowellUNmobilelabs.jpg

/enriched uranium from Africa!
 
2013-06-23 08:13:46 PM
Shouldn't Mr. Greenwald's comment apply to the entire Washington DC press corps?
 
2013-06-23 08:14:13 PM
Sorry for the thread jack but some of you may enjoy this. I don't know where to put it. It certainly won't get green lit.

    Obama called "war criminal" & "hypocrite of the century" in Irish Parliament
 
2013-06-23 08:19:28 PM

TV's Vinnie: [img.fark.net image 512x384]
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.


I love how the SImpsons has a meme for pretty much everything.
 
2013-06-23 08:20:29 PM

DeArmondVI: Perhaps it was that whole "we got lied into war" thing that has me just a bit skeptical about government assertions given without evidence, on the assumption that the evidence for their assertions is classified.


We DID get lied into a war, and nobody went to jail over it.  A LOT of people died because of a series of lies that are merely characterized as mistakes.

What would have been the affect of whistleblower to THAT story?
"Hi, Washington Post?  I'm an analyst, and I believe the entire case presented for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been fabricated and I will have some documents ready to show you .... [ack!]

While we knew the government probably had back doors into all manner of things, and heard evidence of requests for more data without warrants or with rubber stamp warrants, it's the allegation that contractors working for hire had the government's keys to do the same data mining that has sent a chill down my spine.  I do not believe the laws are in place for effective oversight of this data mining, nor do I believe there are any limits being set on those wishing to do that data mining.

I own my own server, but I don't control the server farm its located in.  I have no way of knowing if the government is copying every bit of data in and out of there.
 
2013-06-23 08:32:54 PM
Shoulda gone Piers Morgan on him: "You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?"
 
2013-06-23 08:34:49 PM

DeArmondVI: There is, of course, the possibility that you have no evidence that "He put this country at risk" and prefer to base your argument on an unfounded assumption.

Paging Judith Miller!


Sometimes the obvious truths hide in plain sight.
Who did more to put the (people of) their country at risk then Judith Miller and the entire state and media apparatus that lied us invading Iraq.

Consider the costs to the citizenry of both countries. Dead and wounded, paraplegics, quadriplegics, thousand of lives and families torn apart by PTSDs.

Why has not one of those people that lied to the public been held accountable in a court of law or even faced investigation?

But they are going to arrest Snowden!
 
2013-06-23 08:46:38 PM

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

"Mr President, is it true that you authorized data collection without a warrant?"

"It was wall good and legal."

"So, that's a no...cool.  See you at the party tonight, dude."

Journalism!


Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
 
2013-06-23 08:47:58 PM

Vectron: Why has not one of those people that lied to the public been held accountable in a court of law or even faced investigation?

But they are going to arrest Snowden!


People with badges usually don't arrest other badge wearing people. It's a perk.
 
2013-06-23 08:49:35 PM

Nabb1: Aarontology: make me some tea: Aarontology: So basically, Gregory wants to outlaw a free press.

That's what he's implying, yes. Hence my "sad" comment, because this shiat's going off the rails.

That's what's so troubling about this. It's gone far beyond the government spying on the American people.

And, it seems, many in the media would rather be collaborators than watchdogs.


Well, in the media's defense, collaborators do get more money and perks.
 
2013-06-23 08:51:46 PM

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


Also, there needs to be a moratorium on the use of the term "whistleblower" in these threads. It's not a generic synonym for "somebody who leaks classified information" - "whistleblowing" means something specific, and what Snowden did isn't it.
 
2013-06-23 08:57:58 PM

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

Also, there needs to be a moratorium on the use of the term "whistleblower" in these threads. It's not a generic synonym for "somebody who leaks classified information" - "whistleblowing" means something specific, and what Snowden did isn't it.


I disagree, what he did is exactly the definition of a whistleblower.
 
2013-06-23 08:58:03 PM

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

Also, there needs to be a moratorium on the use of the term "whistleblower" in these threads. It's not a generic synonym for "somebody who leaks classified information" - "whistleblowing" means something specific, and what Snowden did isn't it.


Some will call him a whistleblower and some will call him a traitor.

Some will call him a hero and some will call him a fool.

I think he's all of the above.
 
2013-06-23 08:58:05 PM

TV's Vinnie: [img.fark.net image 512x384]
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.


They are worse than paparazzi.. At least paparazzi mantain a largely antagonistic relationship to the people they cover.  The beltway media is more concerned with being able to go to the same parties as the people they claim to be covering.  They are closer to publicists or (sponsored content).

/Nabb1's newest version of subroutine_1 doesn't quite fit this thread.
 
2013-06-23 09:00:10 PM

Rwa2play: Shouldn't Mr. Greenwald's comment apply to the entire Washington DC press corps?


Well yeah, but most of them won't actually interview him.  They'll just interview John McCain about him.
 
2013-06-23 09:02:06 PM

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

Also, there needs to be a moratorium on the use of the term "whistleblower" in these threads. It's not a generic synonym for "somebody who leaks classified information" - "whistleblowing" means something specific, and what Snowden did isn't it.

Some will call him a whistleblower and some will call him a traitor.

Some will call him a hero and some will call him a fool.

I think he's all of the above.


The only people who can legitimately consider him a "whistleblower" are China (or generally anybody who is loyal primarily to China's current regime). Everyone else who does so is really just revealing that they have no idea what he leaked and what it actually means.
 
2013-06-23 09:05:32 PM
Good to see all of the fark journalism GEDs weighing in
 
2013-06-23 09:08:43 PM
Please note that Mr. Snowden represents the 7th prosecution of a leaker under Obama for violation of the 1917 Espionage act.

Want to know how leakers were previously prosecuted under that act in the ninety-two years before his inauguration?

3.
 
2013-06-23 09:10:38 PM

BSABSVR: They are worse than paparazzi.. At least paparazzi mantain a largely antagonistic relationship to the people they cover. The beltway media is more concerned with being able to go to the same parties as the people they claim to be covering. They are closer to publicists or (sponsored content)


Stenographers.
Hagiographers.
 
2013-06-23 09:11:08 PM

SVenus: DeArmondVI: Perhaps it was that whole "we got lied into war" thing that has me just a bit skeptical about government assertions given without evidence, on the assumption that the evidence for their assertions is classified.

We DID get lied into a war, and nobody went to jail over it.  A LOT of people died because of a series of lies that are merely characterized as mistakes.


I remember multiple discussions in college during the election of 2004. During that time Bush supporters absolutely refused to accept that there were no WMD or that Saddam didn't have plans to attack the US. I would hear things like, "Bush knows things that we can't know, due to just how sensitive the intel is. I trust him when he speaks. He loves this country and would not lie about something so important."

As the years have gone by, I wonder if those who argued with me still buy their old arguments, or if they finally realized that they were wrong. Or, perhaps, they just don't think about it too much because it makes them angry to entertain the notion that they were lied to. I dunno.

One guy, after the foreign policy debate with Kerry, argued that "You could just tell, by the look on Bush's face, that there are things he knows that he can't say. He would've won the debate hands down but aided our enemies had he revealed what he knows. It must be a heavy burden to not be able to fight back." I still get angry when I remember that argument. In fact, was that an actual argument he made, or a manifestation of some sort of political-religious faith where, by design, empiricism can't be used in rebuttal?
 
2013-06-23 09:12:11 PM
Fun Fact: If it serves their end-goal, the NSA/CIA/FBI will put a knife in your back just as fast as Al Qaeda.  Just ask Kennedy.
 
2013-06-23 09:14:12 PM

Biological Ali: The only people who can legitimately consider him a "whistleblower" are China (or generally anybody who is loyal primarily to China's current regime). Everyone else who does so is really just revealing that they have no idea what he leaked and what it actually means.



Daniel Ellsberg (you know, Mr. Pentagon-Papers Ellsberg?) disagrees with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-u ni ted-stasi-america

In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material - and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.
 
2013-06-23 09:18:35 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Daniel Ellsberg (you know, Mr. Pentagon-Papers Ellsberg?) disagrees with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-u ni ted-stasi-america


That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal. That article was certainly sad to read, but only because it's painful to see that even someone like Ellsberg can have an "Area Man Passionate Defender..." moment.
 
2013-06-23 09:20:14 PM
And on that note, I hope Mr. Ellsberg lives for another fifty years. Because you know that when he dies, during the next major leak like this the David Gregorys and Biological Alis of the world will be falling over themselves saying "Mr. Ellsberg would never approve of these kinds of leaks".

But until them we get to pull out this picture.

fairuselab.net
 
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