Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 19, 2016

Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept: Three of the four media outlets that 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.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

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 today not only argued in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden -- the 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."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I suppose the government needs to find some way to save face after the way they botched their pursuit of him with blatantly overzealous actions and crap propaganda. Even if you think Snowden was wrong and despicable for what he did. then it's not too dissimilar from criminal cases where prosecutors decide to charge someone with murder when there's only enough evidence for manslaughter, and the guy walks.

#1 | Posted by sentinel at 2016-09-19 02:16 AM | Reply

Biting the hand that fed them. Never give anything to WaPo again.

#2 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-19 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WaPo???

Oh, you mean the Washington Post that helped sell the Iraqi War?

www.thenation.com

#3 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2016-09-19 12:03 PM | Reply

I think he should be tried in absentia, most likely convicted, and then have his sentence commuted, or given some probationary requirements.

#4 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-09-19 02:07 PM | Reply

Whistleblowers should be protected, not attacked and silenced.

#5 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-09-19 04:22 PM | Reply

Oh, you mean the Washington Post that helped sell the Iraqi War?

www.thenation.com

#3 | Posted by pumpkinhead

Yeah.

LYING to the public to start a war - a forgivable error.

TELLING THE TRUTH to the public to save their freedom and privacy - LOCK HIM UP!

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-19 05:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1, not at all like that. As Snowden has pointed out, under the WWI statute which he is charged, he will not be permitted to defend himself in front of a jury because classified information cannot be used at trial and whistleblower defenses based on higher moral considerations are not permitted either, at trial or sentencing. Basically Snowden would face a wartime Kangaroo Court, the kind that sentenced Chelsea Manning to 35 years, so far in solitary confinement. The kind of Court we admonish third world nations and Russia for practicing.

#7 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-19 06:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also noteworthy about this case is that Wapo used Snowden as a source, published materials from his doc release, and won a Pulitzer.

Note to self. never use Washington Post for whistle blowing.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 06:38 PM | Reply

According to the Bipartisan House panel that investigated him, Snowden "is not a whistle-blower because he did not try to raise his civil liberties concerns through official channels or with Congress, and most of the data he stole from NSA computers was not related to privacy concerns."

So there is that...

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-09-19 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The main reason that WashPo is calling for his prosecution is that they became the recipient of "an estimated 1.5 million classified documents from the National Security Agency...[that] did severe damage to U.S. national security, compromising the intelligence community's anti-terror efforts and endangering the security of the American people as well as active-duty U.S. troops" according the the Bipartisan House panel, which puts the WashPo in a terribly compromised position as the main paper in DC.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-09-19 06:45 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10 It won't be the first or last time the media compromises it's morals to cover it's ass.

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 07:13 PM | Reply

The publisher can decide what gets printed or not, which may or may not compromise "national security" (the excuse for everything illegal and evil). It is utterly ridiculous to prosecute the source, but not the publisher.

#12 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-19 08:05 PM | Reply

How is this controversial? You purposefully disclose numerous secrets to our enemies all over the world, then run and hide in the country of our adversaries (China, Russia), what do you expect? He is a traitor. Period.

#13 | Posted by e1g1 at 2016-09-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I look at Snowden as a one who sacrificed a lot to tell us a lot, while benefiting not at all.

So let's examine the media. What demographic owns the media? Who predominates Wall St? What demographic benefits from a status quo of political corruption that has trashed the economy of most Americans? Are they average citizens of Iowa? Or are they oligarch elites of NYC? Who and what predominates and makes up the demographics of the oligarchy? Are they American blacks with names like Willy Brown or Amish like Jacob Stolzfus? Follow the money as most of them are not obsessed with power and wealth.

#14 | Posted by Robson at 2016-09-19 08:51 PM | Reply

How is this controversial? You purposefully disclose numerous secrets to our enemies all over the world, then run and hide in the country of our adversaries (China, Russia), what do you expect? He is a traitor. Period.

#13 | Posted by e1g1

Because it's not about if what he did was LEGAL, it's about whether it was wrong.

It was illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. That was a law that needed breaking.
It's illegal for adults to smoke pot. That is a law that needs breaking.
It was legal to beat your slave for trying to run away. That was a law that needed breaking.

Snowden broke the law in the name of stopping a larger ongoing crime. That deserves a pardon.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-19 09:14 PM | Reply

Snowden should have gone through the "proper channels" so he could be silenced and jailed forever.

Every freedom loving patriot who has a problem with Russia silencing and jailing people forever knows that.

#16 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-09-19 09:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He is a traitor. Period.
#13 | POSTED BY E1G1 AT 2016-09-19 08:29 PM
---

Any doubts this same poster would have a different opinion of Snowden if the letter after the President's name at the time of the disclosures had been different?

...anyone... no?

Right.

#17 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-09-19 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Why Snowden Won't (and Shouldn't) Get Clemency
He went too far to be considered just a whistleblower.

By Fred Kaplan

www.slate.com

A must read from a dedicated lefty who happens to know national sec issues very well.

"I regard Daniel Ellsberg as an American patriot....

And yet I firmly disagree with the New York Times' Jan. 1 editorial ("Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower"), calling on President Obama to grant Snowden "some form of clemency" for the "great service" he has done for his country.

It is true that Snowden's revelations about the National Security Agency's surveillance of American citizens -- far vaster than any outsider had suspected, in some cases vaster than the agency's overseers on the secret FISA court had permitted -- have triggered a valuable debate, leading possibly to much-needed reforms.

If that were all that Snowden had done, if his stolen trove of beyond-top-secret documents had dealt only with the NSA's domestic surveillance, then some form of leniency might be worth discussing.

But Snowden did much more than that. The documents that he gave the Washington Post's Barton Gellman and the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA's interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what's going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls "worldwide," an effort that (in the Post's words) "allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect."

In his first interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden revealed that the NSA routinely hacks into hundreds of computers in China and Hong Kong.

These operations have nothing to do with domestic surveillance or even spying on allies. They are not illegal, improper, or (in the context of 21st-century international politics) immoral. Exposing such operations has nothing to do with "whistle-blowing."

Many have likened Snowden's actions to Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers. (Ellsberg himself has made the comparison.) But the Pentagon Papers were historical documents on how the United States got involved in the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg leaked them (after first taking them to several senators, who wanted nothing to do with them) in the hopes that their revelations would inspire pressure to end the war. It's worth noting that he did not leak several volumes of the Papers dealing with ongoing peace talks. Nor did he leak anything about tactical operations.

Nor did he go to North Vietnam and praise its leaders (as Snowden did in Russia)."

much more at link

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-19 09:39 PM | Reply

#18 | Posted by Corky

No one is surprised that the voters supporting a corporate military candidate take the corporate military perspective. They don't remember what liberalism is actually about. It's just a team name now.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-19 09:47 PM | Reply

#19

Wow! You totally destroyed Kaplan's argument in one short post. That's truly amazing!

I'm just glad you didn't feel the need to resort to some kind of lame guilt by association and "I'm more liberal than thou" obfuscation instead.

Good job, Speaky!

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-19 09:52 PM | Reply

t3.gstatic.com

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-19 10:00 PM | Reply

#20 "...feel the need to resort to some kind of lame guilt by association and "I'm more liberal than thou" obfuscation instead..."

It's not obfuscation when Speak calls out the fact that you've hitched your wagon to a known warmonger, backed and endorsed by neocon warmongers, who has FUBAR'd 2 nations, taking the side of the elites MIC arm.

It's also a fact that Speak is, by far, more "liberal than thou"; again, no obfuscation there.

#22 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-19 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd bet that Snowden could have quietly divulged the excesses of meta-data collection WITHOUT violating the law or his obligations to National Security. His life in Russia has to be a real shocker. There, he can have no secrets and his fishbowl existence is like a tour through Dante's Inferno.

Although Oliver Stone is employing his great talents as a propagandist to show Snowden in an honorable light, Stone's fictionalization of Snowden's career will probably do Snowden more harm than good.

At this point, Snowden's existence in Purgatory is HIS problem. But, like the Washington Post suggests, the single best option for all concerned would be to return home indicted as a national security criminal and to face charges. He could cop a plea, and spend maybe 20 years in a white collar prioson, pursuing hobbies and enjoying the adulation of his fan base. And his real narcissistic personality can be exposed. In Russia, he could never be truly free and if he calls Russia on its human rights violations, he would be doomed.

#23 | Posted by Augustine at 2016-09-20 11:06 AM | Reply

#22

cf.girlsaskguys.com

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-20 12:24 PM | Reply

As the House Bipartisan Panel found, a tiny fraction of the 1.5 Million classified documents that Snowden released dealt with privacy issues, so to argue that he did it solely to alert the US citizens about PRISM is absurd.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-09-20 02:22 PM | Reply

---- WaPo. A big DC newspaper such as WaPo, whose bread and butter is contacts with high ranking politicians and military types will always denounce those who embarass their sources. Elitists helping other elitists. They rely too closely on the Federal Government to come out with a pro-Snowden editorial It is when it comes to issues such as NSA disclosures and so forth that the ---------- relationship between the huge corporate msm and the government is clearest. And for anyone not paying attention, there is a reason none of the major msm government teat suckers would publish the information provided by Snowden, effectively forcing him to go overseas to get the horrifying truth made public.

Take a step back and just contemplate how disgusting the relationship is between big media and the power brokers in DC. It is a sure-fire recipe for selective reporting. If you are an important enough source or an important enough agency, the corporate media will be very very delicate when it comes to revealing potentially embarassing info. ----------.

#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-09-20 04:54 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort