3 ms·

Setting aside Greenwald's over-the-top emotional appeals, what do you think of the following logic (which may reflect the underlying reasoning): 1. Let's assum

Setting aside Greenwald's over-the-top emotional appeals, what do you think of the following logic (which may reflect the underlying reasoning): 1. Let's assume that the information obtained from the NSA was illegally acquired by Snowden. 2. The Washington Post purposely disseminated such illegally obtained information. 3. Following examination of the materials, it is difficult to believe that the Washington Post did not know that such material was classified, confidential, held state secrets, or was illegally obtained. 4. Therefore, the Washington Post knowingly and purposely disseminated illegally obtained information. 5. Arguably, the Washington post profited from the publishing of such illegally obtained information. Given the above, shouldn't the Washington Post receive whatever punishment Snowden receives? If point #5 is true, it seems that the Washington Post should receive a greater punishment.

tptacek 10y ago
I don't know about criminal punishment. It's a complicated issue. It is extremely problematic that journalists can play an active role in disseminating state secrets and absolve themselves of responsibility. Also: the Washington Post clearly crossed the line from advocate for the US public interest to... something else... in their choices of what to public from the Snowden cache. I'm not here to argue that the Post wasn't hypocritical. They clearly were. I'm just saying: * Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the Post's argument. We can despise the Post's Editorial Page editors as much as Greenwald wants us to and still reach the conclusion that the editorial is valid (though incomplete). * Greenwald is so eager to cast aspersions at journalists who disagree with him that he roped Fred Kaplan into his piece, despite his having nothing (that I know of) to do with the Post's handling of Snowden. Simply because Kaplan is also a journalist, Greenwald believes he's not entitled to correct the record on Oliver Stone's terribly flawed movie.

tptacek 10y ago

I don't know about criminal punishment. It's a complicated issue. It is extremely problematic that journalists can play an active role in disseminating state secrets and absolve themselves of responsibility. Also: the Washington Post clearly crossed the line from advocate for the US public interest to... something else... in their choices of what to public from the Snowden cache. I'm not here to argue that the Post wasn't hypocritical. They clearly were. I'm just saying: * Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the Post's argument. We can despise the Post's Editorial Page editors as much as Greenwald wants us to and still reach the conclusion that the editorial is valid (though incomplete). * Greenwald is so eager to cast aspersions at journalists who disagree with him that he roped Fred Kaplan into his piece, despite his having nothing (that I know of) to do with the Post's handling of Snowden. Simply because Kaplan is also a journalist, Greenwald believes he's not entitled to correct the record on Oliver Stone's terribly flawed movie.