> Publicly disagreeing with a colleague is categorically different from protecting a colleague's source The infuriating part is that they're not admitting to t

> Publicly disagreeing with a colleague is categorically different from protecting a colleague's source The infuriating part is that they're not admitting to the fact that they're publicly disagreeing. Sure, it's obvious if you know the facts - their paper published the details of PRISM. If publishing those details was wrong, then the editors who chose to run that story were wrong. But they never say that. If this editorial said "Snowden should be charged, and those journalists from this paper who chose to publish the details of programs such as PRISM should be fired and be investigated by the relevant authorities" then it would at least be honest (and also a horrible betrayal of both the paper's source and its staff) But they won't admit that when they claim Snowden caused ' “tremendous damage” to national security', that they need to level that same charge at their own colleagues. If Snowden acted against the national interest in providing documents to journalists, then an even stronger claim can be brought against the journalists who published those stories to the public. That The Post chooses to ignore that is pure cowardice.