4 ms·

Greenwald quotes Goldsmith in saying that this information was received from sources "other than Snowden", while the articles that both cite (the NYT and der Sp

by plorg 13y ago

Greenwald quotes Goldsmith in saying that this information was received from sources "other than Snowden", while the articles that both cite (the NYT and der Spiegel) state expressly that the information did come from Mr. Snowden's releases. I'm not sure what to make of the argument that by releasing the trove of documents to journalists (instead of, say, as a big torrent) Snowden is absolved of complicity in any releases of information. That almost sounds like doublespeak. It also suggests that he either didn't know what he was releasing or didn't understand all of its ramifications. Both could be permissible (and, indeed, given the things that we have learned from the releases, is probably laudable from at least a utilitarian perspective), but it complicates the idea of Snowden as a brave truth-teller. Then again, that whole thought is filtered through the lens of this particular piece, in which Greenwald seems to be trying to separate a part of the leaks and recontextualize it separate from the other, definitely necessary stories.

acqq 13y ago
Daniel Ellsberg also released a trove of the material about Vietnam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg "In 1967, he contributed to a top-secret study of classified documents regarding the conduct of the Vietnam War that had been commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara.[7] These documents, completed in 1968, later became known collectively as the Pentagon Papers. It was because Ellsberg held an extremely high-level security clearance and desired to create a further synthesis from this research effort that he was one of very few individuals who had access to the complete set of documents." Do you also question he being a brave truth-teller? Ellsberg has no doubts about Snowden: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vahsi/i_am_pentagon_papers_leaker_daniel_ellsberg http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vahsi/i_am_pentagon_p... "I am Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden is my hero. (...) I believe that Edward Snowden has done more to support and defend the Constitution—in particular, the First and Fourth Amendments—than any member of Congress or any other employee or official of the Executive branch, up to the president: every one of whom took that same oath, which many of them have violated." The oath of the president is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President... "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- plorg 13y ago
  Largely, yes, I believe he's done some great work bringing to light constitutional abuses. I am glad Mr. Ellsberg believes him to be his hero. I believe he is a flawed hero, though I also believe that all humans have their own flaws. However, this is somewhat tangential to my post. Whether you want to call him a criminal, a miscreant, a hero, or even a minor deity on account of his actions, you cannot do so while simultaneously claiming that the information the public receives from these leaks is, morally speaking, completely removed from Mr. Snowden because he handed it off to media outlets. That's what Mr. Greenwald is arguing, and it's confounding. Finally, Greenwald's post was literally written to respond to the claim that the info released about the NSA compromising Huawei has little to nothing to do with the upholding the Constitution. If that's what the leaks are about (which you seem to be suggesting), this is the wrong place to use that as a basis for calling the leaker a hero.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Ellsberg also leaked a lot of material to the press. The press then decided what to publish. Snowden did the same. Do you believe Snowden had to leak only a few pages? It simply wouldn't work. It is doubtful if even the attention the topic received up to now is going to result in any change to the politics. If the political conditions present now remain even after the future articles covering Snowden's material then Snowden still leaked too little and not too much and the press failed to make the change using what he leaked. The world is still in the middle of the attempt to induce a change, we certainly can't consider it done, even if the particular agencies would prefer that.
    - plorg 13y ago
      Let me make this explicit: I am not trying to address whether Snowden is lawful, chaotic, good, bad, or neutral. That is left as an excercise to the reader, though I guess I've proposed some of my ideas above, since that's apparently what you think I want to talk about. I am talking of Greenwald's argument. His argument, again, is as follows: once Snowden handed off the documents, he was absolved of moral responsibility in the matter because he gave the authority to release information to [a list of publications apparently excluding the NYT, but not in such a way as to prevent the NYT from collaborating with the institutions]. This argument seems willfully off-base, because without his participation - or, actually, his instigation - the journalists wouldn't have papers to release at all. He is obviously, then, the prime mover, and so trying to pretend that he doesn't exist as a moral agent is an exercise in willful ignorance.

by plorg 13y ago

acqq 13y ago

Daniel Ellsberg also released a trove of the material about Vietnam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg "In 1967, he contributed to a top-secret study of classified documents regarding the conduct of the Vietnam War that had been commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara.[7] These documents, completed in 1968, later became known collectively as the Pentagon Papers. It was because Ellsberg held an extremely high-level security clearance and desired to create a further synthesis from this research effort that he was one of very few individuals who had access to the complete set of documents." Do you also question he being a brave truth-teller? Ellsberg has no doubts about Snowden: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vahsi/i_am_pentagon_papers_leaker_daniel_ellsberg http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vahsi/i_am_pentagon_p... "I am Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden is my hero. (...) I believe that Edward Snowden has done more to support and defend the Constitution—in particular, the First and Fourth Amendments—than any member of Congress or any other employee or official of the Executive branch, up to the president: every one of whom took that same oath, which many of them have violated." The oath of the president is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President... "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

plorg 13y ago
Largely, yes, I believe he's done some great work bringing to light constitutional abuses. I am glad Mr. Ellsberg believes him to be his hero. I believe he is a flawed hero, though I also believe that all humans have their own flaws. However, this is somewhat tangential to my post. Whether you want to call him a criminal, a miscreant, a hero, or even a minor deity on account of his actions, you cannot do so while simultaneously claiming that the information the public receives from these leaks is, morally speaking, completely removed from Mr. Snowden because he handed it off to media outlets. That's what Mr. Greenwald is arguing, and it's confounding. Finally, Greenwald's post was literally written to respond to the claim that the info released about the NSA compromising Huawei has little to nothing to do with the upholding the Constitution. If that's what the leaks are about (which you seem to be suggesting), this is the wrong place to use that as a basis for calling the leaker a hero.
- acqq 13y ago
  Ellsberg also leaked a lot of material to the press. The press then decided what to publish. Snowden did the same. Do you believe Snowden had to leak only a few pages? It simply wouldn't work. It is doubtful if even the attention the topic received up to now is going to result in any change to the politics. If the political conditions present now remain even after the future articles covering Snowden's material then Snowden still leaked too little and not too much and the press failed to make the change using what he leaked. The world is still in the middle of the attempt to induce a change, we certainly can't consider it done, even if the particular agencies would prefer that.
  - plorg 13y ago
    Let me make this explicit: I am not trying to address whether Snowden is lawful, chaotic, good, bad, or neutral. That is left as an excercise to the reader, though I guess I've proposed some of my ideas above, since that's apparently what you think I want to talk about. I am talking of Greenwald's argument. His argument, again, is as follows: once Snowden handed off the documents, he was absolved of moral responsibility in the matter because he gave the authority to release information to [a list of publications apparently excluding the NYT, but not in such a way as to prevent the NYT from collaborating with the institutions]. This argument seems willfully off-base, because without his participation - or, actually, his instigation - the journalists wouldn't have papers to release at all. He is obviously, then, the prime mover, and so trying to pretend that he doesn't exist as a moral agent is an exercise in willful ignorance.