Glenn Greenwald's response seems to be focused on the ad-hominem. But here, it wasn’t just Kinsley who mounted an argument for the criminalization of journalis

Glenn Greenwald's response seems to be focused on the ad-hominem. But here, it wasn’t just Kinsley who mounted an argument for the criminalization of journalism when done against the government’s wishes. Almost instantly, other prominent journalists–NBC’s David Gregory, The Washington Post’s Charles Lane, New York’s Jonathan Chait–publicly touted and even praised Kinsley’s review. This is really a question of US law, and of the US constitution. It's not for greenwald to declare what and what not any legal system may deem illegal. If he want's to makew a debate as a matter of constitutional law...OK, but its not a suitable topic for blanket statements. Nor is is appropriate to resort to ad-hominem against anyone who believes that the law should either be enforced or legally invalidated. The biggest argument against journalists is the hypocrisy to wedgeing their business model into a space as the "fourth branch" of government in the US. Note that none of this pre-judges the outcome of greenwalds work. The stuff on the NSA is very damaging and very important to have out in the public for debate. A nation cannot exist in a system where privacy is fundamentally undermined and systemically made impossible through pervasive technological means.