Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Amusing, Glenn Greenwald, NSA  
•       •       •

3663 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2013 at 4:34 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-23 01:45:29 PM  
Good for you, Glenn.

F*ck off, David.
 
2013-06-23 01:57:54 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 02:03:55 PM  
Why does David Gregory hate America?  why does David Gregory hate freedom?  Why does David Gregory insist on gobbling government cock?

We're just asking question here.
 
2013-06-23 02:13:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Why does David Gregory hate America?  why does David Gregory hate freedom?  Why does David Gregory insist on gobbling government cock?

We're just asking question here.


Did he know and associate with Glenn Beck in 1990?  If not, why hasn't he denied it?
 
2013-06-23 02:28:04 PM  
Greenwald is a jerk.  As Gregory knows, journalism is when you ask politicians what is happening and report what they say verbatim.
 
2013-06-23 02:42:00 PM  
This whole scenario is making me sad.
 
2013-06-23 02:45:29 PM  
Can't we just say that both Greenwald and Gregory are asshats?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-23 02:48:29 PM  
They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.
 
2013-06-23 03:10:58 PM  

vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.


It's been clearly established that outing an undercover CIA agent is not a crime.
 
2013-06-23 03:28:33 PM  

make me some tea: This whole scenario is making me sad.


Don't fight - it's Earth Day!!
 
2013-06-23 03:36:27 PM  

mikemoto: Can't we just say that both Greenwald and Gregory are asshats?


I normally halfway like both of them, but right about now I'd like to kick their insufferable attention-whoring douchebag asses. David Gregory is clearly overly compliant with most of his sources, and Greenwald isn't a journalist at all. He's an essayist who only writes leftist op-ed pieces. NTTAWWT but writing political essays doesn't make you a journalist. Alexander Cockburn wasn't a journalist any more than Norman Podhoretz was.
 
2013-06-23 03:43:02 PM  
So basically, Gregory wants to outlaw a free press.
 
2013-06-23 03:47:08 PM  

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!
 
2013-06-23 03:52:15 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 03:57:41 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.


How so?

I mean, he might be a jerk, but how is his personal pleasantness relevant?
 
2013-06-23 04:02:56 PM  
Also, you'd think a journalist would understand New York Times Co. v. United States 1971
 
2013-06-23 04:24:31 PM  

vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.


No, they aren't. It's not a journalist's responsibility to do the government's job for it no matter how much you and the Obama Administration think it is.
 
2013-06-23 04:26:37 PM  

Nabb1: vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.

No, they aren't. It's not a journalist's responsibility to do the government's job for it no matter how much you and the Obama

every Presidential Administration think it is.

ftfy
 
2013-06-23 04:28:52 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.

No, they aren't. It's not a journalist's responsibility to do the government's job for it no matter how much you and the Obama every Presidential Administration think it is.

ftfy


Okay. So? That makes it okay or something?
 
2013-06-23 04:40:00 PM  

Nabb1: vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.

No, they aren't. It's not a journalist's responsibility to do the government's job for it no matter how much you and the Obama Administration think it is.


What does what you said have to do with what vpb said?
 
2013-06-23 04:42:27 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 04:44:08 PM  
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.
 
2013-06-23 04:45:31 PM  
Biological Ali:

What does what you said have to do with what vpb said?

Greenwald is not "full of crap."  vpbhas just been echoing the Administration's position on this since day one.
 
2013-06-23 04:46:33 PM  
[David Gregory said] was merely posing a question others have asked, and not "embracing anything."

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.
 
2013-06-23 04:47:01 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 04:49:34 PM  

gimmegimme: It's been clearly established that outing an undercover CIA agent is not a crime


if you're a Republican
 
2013-06-23 04:51:04 PM  

Nabb1: Biological Ali:

What does what you said have to do with what vpb said?

Greenwald is not "full of crap."  vpbhas just been echoing the Administration's position on this since day one.


"Since day one"? So, are you responding what vpb actually said in this thread, or are you just continuing an unrelated argument from some previous thread?
 
2013-06-23 04:54:14 PM  
The only bias the media has is a pro-media bias.

Lock up suspects permanently with no hope of a trial and nobody cares, a Faux News reporter has his phone tapped and everyone loses their minds.
 
2013-06-23 04:55:37 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 04:57:40 PM  
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.)
 
2013-06-23 04:59:33 PM  
Note:  I think Snowden should spend the rest of his life in jail.

And David Gregory is an idiot who should be fired for incompetence for even asking that question.
 
2013-06-23 05:00:02 PM  

Nabb1: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: vpb: They are both full of crap.  Reporting on a leak isn't aiding and abetting.

On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?

They are both pretty extreme.

No, they aren't. It's not a journalist's responsibility to do the government's job for it no matter how much you and the Obama every Presidential Administration think it is.

ftfy

Okay. So? That makes it okay or something?


Yeah, dude...that's what I meant.  Have a drink...sit down and think nice thoughts for a while.

I meant to point out that this is not an "Obama" thing, it's a "President" thing.

DO YOU DISAGAREE??!?  WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!  [INDISCRIMINATE OUTRAGE]!!!
 
2013-06-23 05:01:31 PM  

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.)


The crime would not be in writing the story, but in soliciting the original criminal actions (in this case, the leak).
 
2013-06-23 05:03:21 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 05:04:29 PM  

Nabb1: And, it seems, many in the media would rather be collaborators than watchdogs.


Except when it happened to them.
 
2013-06-23 05:07:12 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.


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?
 
2013-06-23 05:09:14 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.


The cancer has metastasized.
 
2013-06-23 05:13:16 PM  

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"?
 
2013-06-23 05:13:36 PM  
He is not a journalist.  He's a corporate/state media shill. A gatekeeper.
 
2013-06-23 05:18:42 PM  

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?


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.

Please cite this law.
 
2013-06-23 05:21:42 PM  

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".
 
2013-06-23 05:24:31 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 05:25:13 PM  
Well, that was depressing.
 
2013-06-23 05:25:48 PM  
Here is an artist's rendition of what just went down:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-23 05:26:02 PM  
I'm pretty sure Glenn Greenwald is a self-satisfied jerk, but at least he's trying to do some actual journalism.

If I were a CNN shill, I'd make a strong effort to avoid any direct comparisons between myself and the real deal...
 
2013-06-23 05:27:27 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-23 05:28:34 PM  
Whether Gregory is "gatekeeper" or not, I wouldn't be surprised if Greenwald weren't subpoenaed--if they even get around to arresting Snowden.
 
2013-06-23 05:29:53 PM  

vpb: On the other hand, Greenwald thinks that a reporter who reveals the existence of a CIA source in North Korea and possibly got someone killed shouldn't be investigated?


The CIA has assets in Russia.

I hope that my expose there didn't cause too much of an issue.

David Gregory needs to stop whistling past the graveyard on illegality since he committed a felony on film and only got away with it due to prosecutorial discretion.
 
2013-06-23 05:29:58 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1:

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.


So, d you think journalists who ask sources for information are soliciting?
 
2013-06-23 05:30:36 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.


So every law enforcement sting operation is not only invalid, but every law enforcement officer involved in them should be brought up on charges of [insert citation of law]
 
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.
 
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
 
2013-06-23 09:26:36 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: 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".


Is there a point buried somewhere in the flurry of posts you've made since entering this thread? Some argument you'd like to make, perhaps? Some insight you'd like to share?
 
2013-06-23 09:28:25 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: 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.


I agree completely. I haven't seen so many liberals doing double-think in my whole life. But it just confirms my theory that most of you deserve to be the cattle that you are.

/Can't be a right winger since it's full of people who think Fascism is Democracy and Jesus dinosaurs
/Can't be a left winger since it's full of people who think they can legislate people into better human beings by creating a police state
/In the end we all deserve what we get
 
2013-06-23 09:37:52 PM  

Biological Ali: That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buxtun
There was nothing illegal about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment either. It was just incredibly unethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
Nothing illegal happened here either, just grossly bad practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
The FBI was just incompetent, and not behaving illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean 
Again, no illegal activity, just bad management.


You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.
 
2013-06-23 09:41:22 PM  

Biological Ali: Is there a point buried somewhere in the flurry of posts you've made since entering this thread? Some argument you'd like to make, perhaps? Some insight you'd like to share?


"Biological Ali is wrong about Mr. Snowden's status as a whistleblower."
 
2013-06-23 09:49:33 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.


You missed the point. Ellsberg's "whistleblower" claim is apparently premised on the unsubstantiated claim that the leaks uncovered something "unconstitutional" (or that the things were already known to be unconstitutional and the leaks somehow help undo it - it's a hazy argument that he doesn't really spell out very well).  If the "unconstitutional" aspect is not accepted to begin with, the whole thing falls apart.

In this specific instance, there was nothing unconstitutional and nothing illegal. There was also no internal misconduct, nobody was harmed, and there was no governmental incompetence (aside, potentially, from the fact that someone like Snowden was able to access and leak this stuff to begin with). To give some perspective, the IRS thing (as trivial as it may have been in the scheme of things) would rank higher than this on the scandal-meter, since there was at least some genuine incompetence on display there.
 
2013-06-23 09:53:15 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Biological Ali: That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buxtun
There was nothing illegal about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment either. It was just incredibly unethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
Nothing illegal happened here either, just grossly bad practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
The FBI was just incompetent, and not behaving illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean
Again, no illegal activity, just bad management.


You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.


At least we never forced people into leper colonies.

What's that? Oh, nevermind.
 
2013-06-23 09:59:32 PM  

mikemoto: Can't we just say that both Greenwald and Gregory are asshats?


Greenwald is the type of asshat who makes an excellent investigative journalist. Much as we loathe them, we need people like him around.

Gregory is the type of asshat who fills time on Sunday morning news shows. We could probably do without those, but then the handful of blowhard politicos who actually watch that crap wouldn't have anything to watch on the weekends.
 
2013-06-23 10:01:02 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Biological Ali: Is there a point buried somewhere in the flurry of posts you've made since entering this thread? Some argument you'd like to make, perhaps? Some insight you'd like to share?

"Biological Ali is wrong about Mr. Snowden's status as a whistleblower."


See now, isn't that better? The sooner you express your feelings in terms of a straightforward argument, the sooner someone can show you just how wrong that argument is. Saves everyone a bunch of time.
 
2013-06-23 10:02:01 PM  
H.R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, from the Nixon tapes  June 14, 1972

 Donald Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.
 
2013-06-23 10:05:25 PM  

secularsage: Greenwald is the type of asshat who makes an excellent investigative journalist. Much as we loathe them, we need people like him around.


I agree.  And I also appreciate Greenwald.  He is brave enough to be critical towards popular and powerful institutions.  That cannot be easy.
 
2013-06-23 10:06:01 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.


Just because something gets TOP SECRET/SCI/NOFORN slapped on it doesn't necessarily mean there is any actual national security, risk, or importance attached to it.  It's also possible the government is trying to obscure a program that can easily be abused to suppress dissent and would not be popular for good reason, which, in a country that's supposed to be governed with the consent of the governed, is kind of a problem.
 
2013-06-23 10:10:20 PM  

SVenus: H.R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, from the Nixon tapes  June 14, 1972

 Donald Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.


Presidents may be wrong, but thankfully "[w]hen the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
 
2013-06-23 10:10:45 PM  

AdamK: 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


http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Water-official-equates-co mp laints-with-terrorism-4614669.php

holy. farking ..  crap ... ...you weren't exaggerating.  TDEC Deputy Director of the Division of Water ResourcesSherwin Smith says, "...you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there's no water quality issues, that can be considered, under homeland security, an act of terrorism."

*headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*
 
2013-06-23 10:42:06 PM  
David Gregory is being probed by aliens, and has been for the last two years. His stand-in robot wears entirely too much makeup foundation on the "news" shows.
 
2013-06-23 11:25:38 PM  

DeArmondVI: SVenus: H.R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, from the Nixon tapes  June 14, 1972

 Donald Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.

Presidents may be wrong, but thankfully "[w]hen the President does it, that means it is not illegal."


But everybody under the President goes to jail. Except Fawn Hall.
 
2013-06-23 11:27:55 PM  

whidbey: thisispete: I still applaud Snowden and Greenwald.

For what? Breaching national security? Real laudable.


Which is worse? Breaching national security or breaching The Constitution?

The Constitution's *purpose* is to limit over-reaching governmental powers.

"We're spying on you for your own good" harks back to Soviet/East German politics which some of us were raised to abhor.
 
2013-06-23 11:30:22 PM  

DeArmondVI: Cubicle Jockey: Biological Ali: That joke article aside ("United Stasi"? Really?), the fact remains that Snowden has not revealed anything unconstitutional or illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buxtun
There was nothing illegal about the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment either. It was just incredibly unethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
Nothing illegal happened here either, just grossly bad practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
The FBI was just incompetent, and not behaving illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacLean
Again, no illegal activity, just bad management.


You have a very narrow definition of Whistleblower.

At least we never forced people into leper colonies.

What's that? Oh, nevermind.



Unfortunately, those arguments are ineffective against what I call the Lawful Stupid.  In the eyes of the Lawful Stupid, those things were perfectly justified because they were legal.  Likewise, seemingly unconstitutional surveillance is justified if a secret court deems it constitutional.  Congress provides perfectly good oversight, even when they're lied to and prevented from knowing what it is they're overseeing.  Lawful Stupid people actually believe this.  The only reason a Lawful Stupid person might agree that those things were terrible, is if the law has changed since then.

The only time an argument with a Lawful Stupid person can ever end in a way other than stalemate is in those rare cases when the law is just, or in the even rarer case when they are spontaneously cured of Lawful Stupidity.
 
2013-06-23 11:59:19 PM  

StopLurkListen: AdamK: 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

http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Water-official-equates-co mp laints-with-terrorism-4614669.php

holy. farking ..  crap ... ...you weren't exaggerating.  TDEC Deputy Director of the Division of Water ResourcesSherwin Smith says, "...you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there's no water quality issues, that can be considered, under homeland security, an act of terrorism."

*headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*   *headdesk*


"Tennessee Deputy Director of the Division of Water Resources"

Mixing thugs and a little power is not a good recipe.
 
2013-06-24 01:31:29 AM  

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


That's about prior restraints on speech.  Not about punishing someone after the publishing.
 
2013-06-24 02:43:26 AM  

StopLurkListen: 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.

So every law enforcement sting operation is not only invalid, but every law enforcement officer involved in them should be brought up on charges of [insert citation of law]


If it results in the comission of a crime that would not otherwise be comitted, then yes.
 
2013-06-24 06:20:55 AM  

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.


[ben franklin.jpg]
 
2013-06-24 07:55:57 AM  
Quiet down.The public is stirring.
 We all know investigated journalism is on sabbatical.
img.fark.net
/ gatekeepers and fellow travelers.

// As soon as Obama & Hillary leave office,
 we'll find religion and get back on the job.
 
Displayed 172 of 172 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report