5 ms·

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/ http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/

by jccc 11y ago

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/ http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-greenwald_n_3430048.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-gr... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/25/what-would-it-take-to-nail-glenn-greenwald-under-the-espionage-act/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/... http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_prosecute_greenwald_a_blurry_answer_20131117 http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_... http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-wouldnt-prosecute-glenn-greenwald http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-... Taken literally from the entire first page on Google: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20greenwald https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20gree... At least one sitting U.S. Congressman called for it, David Gregory threw it directly in Greenwald's face on Meet the Press, the question was even brought to the U.S. Attorney General. Against that backdrop if someone calls these journalists "assistants" to Snowden, it really shouldn't be out of bounds to ask about it.

tptacek 11y ago
You are not out of bounds asking any of those people to answer for what they said, but please stop asking me to.
- jccc 11y ago
  With absolutely sincere respect, given your credentials and your role on this forum, I will ask you to answer for what you say when it -- albeit perhaps unintentionally -- entails false innuendo.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.
    - jccc 11y ago
      For whatever it's worth: > albeit perhaps unintentionally You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators. The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo. (Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")
  - jccc 11y ago
    Note, unintentionally -- When an influential voice on HN albeit unintentionally spreads false and damaging innuendo, then says he should not be challenged, what is the appropriate way to say that, yes, in fact he should be challenged? (His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)

by jccc 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

You are not out of bounds asking any of those people to answer for what they said, but please stop asking me to.

jccc 11y ago
With absolutely sincere respect, given your credentials and your role on this forum, I will ask you to answer for what you say when it -- albeit perhaps unintentionally -- entails false innuendo.
- tptacek 11y ago
  There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.
  - jccc 11y ago
    For whatever it's worth: > albeit perhaps unintentionally You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators. The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo. (Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")
- jccc 11y ago
  Note, unintentionally -- When an influential voice on HN albeit unintentionally spreads false and damaging innuendo, then says he should not be challenged, what is the appropriate way to say that, yes, in fact he should be challenged? (His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)