4 ms·

When asked for a flat-out answer whether he gave classified information to the Chinese government: "No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just

by freyr 13y ago

When asked for a flat-out answer whether he gave classified information to the Chinese government: "No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists." Perhaps he should rephrase that as "no direct contact." Apparently, by handing over classified information to journalists, he believes he's absolved of any responsibility where it eventually winds up, whether on the desk of Chinese officials, or in the morning paper.

jlgreco 13y ago
Using the word "direct" again like that would probably not have the effect of improving the general quality of discussion. It would be a pretty "troll" move at this point. Maybe he should have said, "Not wittingly."
- freyr 13y ago
  > It would be a pretty "troll" move at this point. Maybe he should have said, "Not wittingly." He wittingly gave Greenwald classified documents to make public, so "not wittingly" is not true. Via Greenwald, he gave classified information to the Chinese government (and everybody else). I'm just saying, he should be transparent and honest about the implications of his actions. When he hands classified information over to journalists, he loses all control of that information. It could be made public, it could be handed over to government officials, it's impossible to say. He says he's sitting on a lot more information that he plans to release, and everybody here seems very comfortable with that idea. We're being extremely trusting to hand this man the sole authority to decide what information is leaked to journalists and what remains classified. At the least, we should get the sense that he's being fully transparent and intellectually honest about his actions and their ramifications.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    You clearly have not subscribed to the revised definition of "wittingly".
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      you mean perhaps the least untruthful definition of wittingly?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        "least untruthful" is not how I would describe the 'New American Revised' definition.

by freyr 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

Using the word "direct" again like that would probably not have the effect of improving the general quality of discussion. It would be a pretty "troll" move at this point. Maybe he should have said, "Not wittingly."

freyr 13y ago
> It would be a pretty "troll" move at this point. Maybe he should have said, "Not wittingly." He wittingly gave Greenwald classified documents to make public, so "not wittingly" is not true. Via Greenwald, he gave classified information to the Chinese government (and everybody else). I'm just saying, he should be transparent and honest about the implications of his actions. When he hands classified information over to journalists, he loses all control of that information. It could be made public, it could be handed over to government officials, it's impossible to say. He says he's sitting on a lot more information that he plans to release, and everybody here seems very comfortable with that idea. We're being extremely trusting to hand this man the sole authority to decide what information is leaked to journalists and what remains classified. At the least, we should get the sense that he's being fully transparent and intellectually honest about his actions and their ramifications.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  You clearly have not subscribed to the revised definition of "wittingly".
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    you mean perhaps the least untruthful definition of wittingly?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      "least untruthful" is not how I would describe the 'New American Revised' definition.