Let us make a distinction between "leakers" (Snowden/Manning) and "publishers" (Assange/Greenwald)

[grantcart]

Without getting into the more contentious discussion of whether or not you support those that leak secret information that they have sworn to keep confidential (Snowden/Manning), and I in general do not support their actions, we should draw a big line between their actions and the people who publish those secrets (Assange/Greenwald and yes I understand that GG was acting as a contributor to the article and not the actual publisher).

There is a huge difference between betraying an oath and receiving secret material and publishing it.

So while I don't like either Assange or Greenwald and find their opinion pieces objectionable I find criticism for them publishing the secrets to be weak and some of the comments against GG to be ridiculous.

First of all our constitution has, for good reasons, very strong protections for those that are publishers.

Second it is somewhat naïve to believe that either Assange or Greenwald are that important in getting the material out to the media.

If neither Assange or Greenwald had been involved in publishing the material there are a hundred other places, including the New York Times, that would have gladly published the material.

Criticism of Greenwald for writing the article and the Guardian for publishing it are, IMHO, quite irrelevant. I for one wish the media had been doing its job during the ramp up to the Iraqi war and published the secrets about the lies. And as much damage as the leaks do (and I suspect that the damages are somewhat exaggerated) I would have to accept those problems as part of the price of a free press and the view that we need that freedom in the future when warmongers will again try to ramp us into another conflict.

[Narkos]

1. Totally agree.

[Bonobo]

2. "Betraying an oath"

I hold no oath to be more important than the principal of doing what is right and protecting people and their rights.

We teach our kids that tattling is wrong --unless it is in the service of a higher good. And that is how it should be.

"Loyalty oaths" are all too often used cynically to protect wrongdoers from the consequences of their bad behavior.

[grantcart]

8. Your reply is completely off the discussion of the action of the leakers as was

explained in order to try and point out that we shouldn't get sidetracked into discussions about the legality of publishing secret material.

However you seem to have a problem following the OP and when you link "tattling" "loyalty oaths" as somehow being in the same neighborhood as leaking secret material it doesn't provide much common ground to discuss, if it were the subject of the OP, which it isn't.

[leveymg]

3. Couldn't agree more. Somehow, I hope this points out how deeply divided the country really is, and

that in itself should give the Administration pause to carefully consider the domestic and international consequences of escalation of the additional new wars we are already involved in. For every Snowden and Bradley, there are thousands of other Americans of conscience who will have to make their own dreadful choices whether to obey orders or to act by their own inner lights.

The long-term costs to this country of plunging further into the abyss of an intra-Muslim regional war will be immense, and it will only tear us apart to the point of terrible and avoidable violence among ourselves. That, we should avoid at virtually any cost.

[MADem]

4. I pretty much agree with that, however, I want to know what Mister Greenwald knew, and when he knew

it.

He is a lawyer--suspended, but not disbarred--and we have learned that he had a relationship with Snowden, an anonymous one, but a relationship nonetheless, before Snowden joined BHA.

We've also learned that Snowden took the job at BHA for the express purpose of stealing information. I would like to know if GG was aware of that.

As an officer of the court, he doesn't want to be put in a situation where he's ignoring criminal activity or worse, abetting it in some way.

As for Assange, someone made a gift to him of classified material. The only laws that he broke were Swedish ones, AFAIAC....

[grantcart]

9. But again that is somewhat confusing

while he may be a lawyer he was functioning as a publisher, unless he was also giving legal advice, in which case he should face a bar exam about conflict of interest along with the points that you list.

[MADem]

10. I don't think being a lawyer has an on/off switch.

He is an officer of the court, and he can't "switch hats" to suit himself. If he has knowledge of criminal activity in advance of the crime, he has a duty to report it. He's guilty of professional misconduct otherwise. He cannot pick, choose and refuse.

Plus, if he was advising Snowden in any way, as a lawyer or a journalist, to go to Hong Kong and release this and do that, well, I can see him being regarded as an accessory to Snowden's criminal acts.

And if he's "representing" Snowden, he has a problem, because his license to practice has been suspended.

[PSPS]

5. Who cares? It's still a surveillance police state.

Despite all the attempts to make this into something else, like a person's role, personality, girlfriend or sexual preference, it has nothing to do with the actual cause of the outrage: We're living in a surveillance police state. I can't fathom the weak mind that would embrace such a state of affairs.

[KittyWampus]

6. Well, Greenwald misrepresented the truth in his article. He didn't fact check or give proper

context. I am referring to "direct access" to Google's servers.

It's like he took a bomb someone gave him and threw it indiscriminately. Exactly what a journalist does not do.

So I don't criticize Greenwald for just writing the article, I criticize him for writing an inexcusably crappy piece of journalism.

[grantcart]

7. Criticizing his writing is valid but others seem like they want to find something criminal in his

actions.

[moondust]

11. So you would be okay with it if...

somebody at Bletchley Park during WWII had leaked evidence to the BBC and Guardian, which in turn had broadcast/published said evidence, that Hitler's ciphers had been decrypted and Churchill was reading Hitler's secret communications with his top generals, and when the Nazis also learned about it from the BBC and Guardian they reconfigured and strengthened their codes to make them unbreakable?

Free press!!!!

[sibelian]

13. Well, If Churchhill had been raping Iraqis and covering up prisoner abuse...

...and Hitler WASN'T interested in persecuting jews or invading everybody... Yes! I would!

I'm British by the way. HI! LOVELY TO MEET YOU!

So lovely to hear of my little island nation on your great big American website. Thanks for the mention!

[sibelian]

12. WHAT? Nooooo!!!! Let's conflate them meaninglessly and have emotional disturbance insteaaaaad...

NO FUN without treating different people with different roles as if they're the same thing...

[randome]

15. What secrets did Greenwald publish?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]