• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Washington Post wants Snowden in prison, calls own Pulitzer-winning reporting useless

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18...n-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/

THREE OF THE FOUR media outlets which received and published large numbers of secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden – The Guardian, The New York Times and The Intercept – have called for the U.S. government to allow the NSA whistleblower to return to the U.S. with no charges. That’s the normal course for a news organization, which owes its sources duties of protection, and which – by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them – implicitly declares the source’s information to be in the public interest.

But not The Washington Post. In the face of a growing ACLU-and-Amnesty-led campaign to secure a pardon for Snowden, timed to this weekend’s release of the Oliver Stone biopic “Snowden,” the Post editorial page not only argued today in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden — their paper’s own source — stand trial on espionage charges or, as a “second-best solution,” “accept[] a measure of criminal responsibility for his excesses and the U.S. government offers a measure of leniency.”


WaPo says *only* the cellphone metadata program was in the public interest, and nothing else was. Including PRISM:

In arguing that no public interest was served by exposing PRISM, what did the Post editors forget to mention? That the newspaper which (simultaneous with The Guardian) made the choice to expose the PRISM program by spreading its operational details and top secret manual all over its front page is called . . . . The Washington Post. Then, once they made the choice to do so, they explicitly heralded their exposure of the PRISM program (along with other revelations) when they asked to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize.


You can't make this shit up, folks.





edit: stealing from Morrigan Stark's post on page 2:

Washington Post, April 14, 2014 (Pulitzer acceptance):
The Post’s coverage of NSA shattered the secrecy of a clandestine government program called PRISM, exposed the NSA’s repeated violations of its own privacy rules and more, bringing to light a discussion about the sometimes uneasy balance between individual privacy and national security.
Washington Post, September 17, 2016 (this article):
The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. [...] What higher cause did that serve?
 
wow its almost as if newsrooms and editorial boards are distinct!

you can also post the actual editorial rather than glenn's parsing of it
 
BUT THIS HIGHLIGHTS A CHRONIC COWARDICE that often arises when establishment figures want to denounce Snowden. As has been amply documented, and as all newspapers involved in this reporting (including the Post) have made clear, Snowden himself played no role in deciding which of these programs would be exposed (beyond providing the materials to newspapers in the first place). He did not trust himself to make those journalistic determinations, and so he left it to the newspapers to decide which revelations would and would not serve the public interest. If a program ended up being revealed, one can argue that Snowden bears some responsibility (because he provided the documents in the first place), but the ultimate responsibility lies with the editors of the paper that made the choice to reveal it, presumably because they concluded that the public interest was served by doing so.

.....

What’s critical here is that Kaplan’s list of Bad Snowden Revelations (just like the Post‘s) invariably involves stories published not by Snowden (or even by The Intercept or The Guardian), but by The New York Times and The Washington Post. But like the Post editorial page editors, Kaplan is too much of a coward to accuse the nation’s top editors at those two papers of treason, helping terrorists, or endangering national security, so he pretends that it was Snowden, and Snowden alone, who made the choice to reveal these programs to the public. If Kaplan and the Post editors truly believe that all of these stories ought to have remained secret and have endangered people’s safety, why are they not attacking the editors and newspapers that made the ultimate decision to expose them? Snowden himself never publicly disclosed a single document, so any programs that were revealed were the ultimate doing of news organizations.

This is breathtaking in its buck passing and absolving snowden from any choice in what was published.

Only one person stole documents.The responsibility is solely his and glenn begrudgingly concedes this while still blaming others.
 
And Glenn reads something that isn't in the editorial

the post said:
The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. (It was also not permanent; the law authorizing it expires next year.)

Glenn said:
In arguing that no public interest was served by exposing PRISM, what did the Post editors forget to mention?

Not they never said "no public interest was served"

They're arguing he shouldn't be pardoned. He should have a trial.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
The Snowden movie portrayal of Snowden is cringeworthy.

A random low level contractor being sent on a secret Bourne mission by the head of the NSA?

The record for programming the whole internet hack was previously five hours. Snowden does it in forty minutes - "Actually 38 minutes sir."
 

Lime

Member
the ones who should be charged and punished/rehabilitated are the ones responsible for mass surveillance of everyone
 

Cyanity

Banned
Snowden single-handedly opened up American discourse on mass surveillance, with ripple effects that resulted in worldwide scrutiny of governmental surveillance efforts. These are incredibly important issues and I find it hard to believe that people think he's a traitor who deserves to be in jail for trying to blow the whistle on what was clearly a violation of our constitutional rights.
 

fantomena

Member
Fuck that. Im not sure how it's in the US, but here in Europe, especially Norway, Snowden seems to be regarded as a hero by "everyone", as in everyone I know and talked to either online or IRL.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Wrong hill to die on.

The public is happy to know what Snowden revealed.
 

sflufan

Banned
find it hard to believe that people think he's a traitor who deserves to be in jail for trying to blow the whistle on what was clearly a violation of our constitutional rights.

Well, believe it because I happen to be one of those people. You will excuse me if I don't hold the "rights" contained in an ancient document to be totally sacrosanct and inviolable.
 
The Snowden movie portrayal of Snowden is cringeworthy.

A random low level contractor being sent on a secret Bourne mission by the head of the NSA?

The record for programming the whole internet hack was previously five hours. Snowden does it in forty minutes - "Actually 38 minutes sir."

And this clip about how super smart his is for acing a super hard NSA test that they've been promoting the movie with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0gN0PLcBGw

One more thing that the film doesn’t mention: While he was still a Dell contractor, Snowden applied for a job with the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations office. TAO is where the agency’s super-elite hackers work. He failed the exam (no shame in that; it’s a famously brutal test). Then he took it again and passed. TAO offered him a job, but he turned it down after learning that first-year TAO officials make a lot less money that contractors. After Snowden fled and NSA security officials conducted forensics analysis of his computer to see what he’d downloaded, they discovered that, using his privileges as a systems administrator, he had stolen the questions and answers for the TAO exam; that’s why he aced the test the second time.

He stole answers.
 
Wrong hill to die on.

The public is happy to know what Snowden revealed.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...en-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds

For his efforts, about 64 percent of Americans familiar with Snowden hold a negative opinion of him, according to KRC Research poll results shared with U.S. News. Thirty-six percent hold a positive opinion, with just 8 percent holding a very positive opinion.

The survey was commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union, which provides legal representation to Snowden, who received asylum in Russia after the U.S. canceled his passport.

The ACLU found this isn't the case
 
I hope he doesn't return to the US, I'm sure some backwards fuckhead will take it upon themselves to do a service to their country and kill the "traitor".
 
I hope he doesn't return to the US, I'm sure some backwards fuckhead will take it upon themselves to do a service to their country and kill the "traitor".

He's hiding is Russia. The fact you think that he's more endangered here than the political assassination capital of the world is laughable
 

sflufan

Banned
He's hiding is Russia. The fact you think that he's more endangered here than the political assassination capital of the world is laughable

He's a "useful idiot" to Moscow for the time being so he will be perfectly safe under the watchful eye of the FSB.

For the time being.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Snowden single-handedly opened up American discourse on mass surveillance, with ripple effects that resulted in worldwide scrutiny of governmental surveillance efforts. These are incredibly important issues and I find it hard to believe that people think he's a traitor who deserves to be in jail for trying to blow the whistle on what was clearly a violation of our constitutional rights.

Exactly. People treated the subject of illegal mass surveillance of the american people as bullshit until Snowden exposed it; now everyone knows and there's actually a public discourse about it. The notion that he should have gone through the "legal channels" to expose it is laughable considering how whistleblowers who do so in these situations are treated. The whole system is set up such that there's no viable legal means to report this shit without heavy ramifications for the whistleblower.
 

fantomena

Member
Snowden single-handedly opened up American discourse on mass surveillance, with ripple effects that resulted in worldwide scrutiny of governmental surveillance efforts. These are incredibly important issues and I find it hard to believe that people think he's a traitor who deserves to be in jail for trying to blow the whistle on what was clearly a violation of our constitutional rights.

Agreed. I remember our government started talking lots about surveillance because of Snowden. Not sure if there were any reveals, don't remember.
 

DpadD

Banned
He's hiding is Russia. The fact you think that he's more endangered here than the political assassination capital of the world is laughable

*Looks at Bradley Manning*

*Looks at Edward Snowden.*

Which one is serving 35 years in prison and being tortured?
 
He's hiding is Russia. The fact you think that he's more endangered here than the political assassination capital of the world is laughable

Where the hell did I say he's safer in Russia?

Ultimately, he's not safe anywhere, but the last thing I want to see is the rednecks and alt-rights feeling like they've won anything if he comes to harm if he came back.
 
Fair enough.

I can't imagine wanting to be ignorant that we are being spied on, but enjoy your Orwellian cage.

Its almost as if this is a false dichotomy! I dislike snowden for the same reasons that the post claims. He revealed legit US operations that did not violate constitutional protections, did so by deception, hid in Russia, as been extremely inaccurate with his discriptions of programs.and motivations, and refuses to face a fair trial unless he gets special protections. I have not attacked his release of programs that collected data on americans in potential violation of the law

*Looks at Bradley Manning*

*Looks at Edward Snowden.*

Which one is serving life in prison and being tortured everyday?

Snowden is a private citizen, he wouldn' be in military jail and not in solitary. This is an comparison that isn't based in fact
 

YaBish

Member
I had a conversation with somebody yesterday who thought that Snowden didn't reveal anything new and that he should be in jail for threatening national security, then likened him to Julian assange. Needless to say, I don't agree with everything that Snowden did, but the public has so many misconceptions about what he actually revealed and why.
 

fantomena

Member
I had a conversation with somebody yesterday who thought that Snowden didn't reveal anything new and that he should be in jail for threatening national security, then likened him to Julian assange. Needless to say, I don't agree with everything that Snowden did, but the public has so many misconceptions about what he actually revealed and why.

Government Surveillance: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Someone thought he was the founder of Wikileaks if I remember the video correctly.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
And Glenn reads something that isn't in the editorial





Not they never said "no public interest was served"

They're arguing he shouldn't be pardoned. He should have a trial.

You seem shocked, this is Glenn Greenwald.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Of course he should have a trial.

He broke the law. By his own admission.

A trial would help with daylight on both Snowden's actions and the government's.

If he's Pardoned then I'd have no objection to that if the evidence showed that he performed a public good that outweighs the political, information and technology deficit his actions contributed to.

Gaf tends to vote hero or villain on Snowden and it's not that simple.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
What an embarrassment for the WP. I expected better. Hypocrites.


It's an op ed. a personal opinion presented as such often in stark contrast to the newspapers own typical editorial stance.

This is a newspaper tradition hundreds of years old


God help me.
 
Well, believe it because I happen to be one of those people. You will excuse me if I don't hold the "rights" contained in an ancient document to be totally sacrosanct and inviolable.

Yeah, let's be flippant about our right to privacy in defense of an organization that wasn't even effective at the purpose it set out to achieve.
 

foppy79

Member
Well this thread is off to a great start.

Snowden, in my book, did the right thing. His problems only started when he picked Russia to flee too (although I doubt he had much of a choice). Everyone I know in my local area thinks he's giving Russia all the juicy details on...things. If he is pardoned, it won't be until after the election, or after Obama's out of office (he apparently doesn't like him very much).
 
Snowden single-handedly opened up American discourse on mass surveillance...
Where is the discourse? You can't be the surveillance Rosa Parks without facing the consequences.
The way things stand he's a cowardly traitor who is serving Russia's fascist regime. The fact that Putin's asswipe Assange recommended him to go to Russia is telling.
 

therealjay

Neo Member
People don't understand editorial boards?

Snowden isn't a "protected source" in the original sense anyway. Everyone knows he did what he did. There's no identity to protect.

Stupid article is stupid just wanting to shit on one of the best papers we have left for God knows why.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
I dislike snowden for the same reasons that the post claims. He revealed legit US operations that did not violate constitutional protections, did so by deception, hid in Russia,
Hid in Russia? His passport was revoked while he was in Russia. You think he stayed in Russia by choice?

as been extremely inaccurate with his discriptions of programs.and motivations,
What on earth are you talking about?
and refuses to face a fair trial unless he gets special protections.
Can you really fucking blame him? Jesus, look at how whistleblowers are treated by the US gov't!

Of course he should have a trial.

He broke the law. By his own admission.

A trial would help with daylight on both Snowden's actions and the government's.
Yeah, he should totally trust the US government to give him a fair trial. *eye roll*

Snowden is a scumbag, so I cannot disagree with this.
Scumbag, how? Are you confusing him with Assange?
 
People don't understand editorial boards?

Snowden isn't a "protected source" in the original sense anyway. Everyone knows he did what he did. There's no identity to protect.

Stupid article is stupid just wanting to shit on one of the best papers we have left for God knows why.
1. WP exposes PRISM using Snowden info. Article eventually gets them the Pullitzer.
3. WP says today Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because exposing PRISM was of no public interest.

You really don't see any issue here?
 
This is the same Washington Post that exposed Watergate.

The Washington Post has been dining out on that for forty years, as well as cashing their "liberal media" check, despite their reliance on conservative columnists and the timidity of their political reporters.
 
Scumbag, how? Are you confusing him with Assange?

Assange is a massive scumbag.

This guy is just a regular scumbag.

If you are going to go through the effort of stealing government secrets, committing treason, and betraying your employer you should at least have some sort of groundbreaking info to release.

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.
 

Robot Pants

Member
The Snowden movie portrayal of Snowden is cringeworthy.

A random low level contractor being sent on a secret Bourne mission by the head of the NSA?

The record for programming the whole internet hack was previously five hours. Snowden does it in forty minutes - "Actually 38 minutes sir."
No way. Is this real? I haven't been following anything on the movie
 

Blader

Member
That’s the normal course for a news organization, which owes its sources duties of protection

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this duty of protection really just about not disclosing their identity?
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
1. WP exposes PRISM using Snowden info. Article eventually gets them the Pullitzer.
3. WP says today Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because exposing PRISM was of no public interest.

You really don't see any issue here?
Seriously. And as for "news reporters != editorialists", Greenwald's article does address that too, anyway.

WP can get fucked.

This guy is just a regular scumbag.

If you are going to go through the effort of stealing government secrets, committing treason, and betraying your employer you should at least have some sort of groundbreaking into to release.

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.
*jaw drop* That is so preposterous, I don't even know where to start. But even if you actually believe that what he leaked wasn't "ground-breaking info" and "non-events", if what he did isn't a big deal after all... then surely he can't be considered a "scumbag traitor" but just a very mild offender? Your point of view makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Seriously. And as for "news reporters != editorialists", Greenwald's article does address that too, anyway.

WP can get fucked.


*jaw drop* That is so preposterous, I don't even know where to start. But even if you actually believe that what he leaked wasn't "ground-breaking info" and "non-events", if what he did isn't a big deal after all... then surely he can't be considered a "scumbag traitor" but just a very mild offender? Your point of view makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't think there is such a thing as "mild" treason.

Releasing classified info shouldn't be something done on a lark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom