The debate about the release of the secret documents is a mix of TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS.

[Are_grits_groceries]

I look at the documents that have been released and pay little attention to the proclamations, and character analyses of those who exposed them.
There has been little pushback about their authenticity when published as is without editing except for redacting names by some.

Many people including the administration are spending their time attacking his work, his character, and debating whether he is a hero or a not. Snowden is experiencing the same thing.

There are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES
1-Greenwald's and Snowden's motives, character, analysis, opinions, 'hero or not' debate and other items are one set of arguments.
2-The analysis of the documents, the law that allows these programs, and other points are a separate debate.

The issue of whether you don't like the messenger or the mailman is not germane. It is a red herring to distract the focus from where it should be. It should be focused on the content of the documents.

[DCBob]

1. Correct.. but I would add..

that the debate about Snowden's credibility brings into question any of the claims he made outside of what's stated in the actual documents.

[bUU]

2. The issue goes deeper than that

A more important question is whether the information revealed was revealed with honor and integrity. Classic whistleblowers reveal information ready and willing to suffer the consequences of the law, in order to stand up for what they believe. If the presumption is that the law wouldn't treat such disclosures "fairly", then that is a definitively rebellious presumption, and no one should be surprised by accusations of treason and such.

Essentially, one cannot have their cake and eat it too: If you're going to reveal secrets that the law says you don't have the right to reveal, then you're going to suffer consequences unless a preponderance of your fellow citizens abide by your view of the content of those secrets. Trying to evade those consequences just makes you appear more guilty.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. That is a separate argument

from from what the documents say and how the programs behind them are set up.
I am not going to argue either debate here. I am stating that people are mixing two arguments that need to be kept separate.

[HereSince1628]

3. The primary rule = don't respond to an exposure by revealling more

In fact, what you want to do is work within the exposure to make it not seem so serious.

During Watergate, Nixon referred to this rule under the phrase "modified limited hangout" .

OF COURSE as part of the modified limited hangout 1) there will be an attempt to distract, and 2) the serious implications will be ignored as much as possible. It -is- S.O.P.

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. Yep.

It is also being used on DU to distract from the issues about the documents themselves.
Who knew the MLH would be employed so eagerly here?

[Shivering Jemmy]

4. What is to debate about the contents?

They aren't surprising and as such I am not much disturbed by them. There is no claim in them that I didn't believe already.

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. What you believe and what can be confirmed are 2 different things.

Your beliefs have no bearing on what is actually happening.
Others may have no information or opinions about this matter. Presenting the documents that reveal what is being done secretly should start an argument about such programs and their secrecy.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. Another thing that bothers me about this incident is

the ease with which these documents were obtained. I had always assumed that there was enough security in place to prevent anyone from downloading info onto personal or portable devices and taking them offsite.

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. One would hope the learned from Manning.

I guess they are still counting on people to abide by some honor code. Yeah, that'll work.

They have also underestimated the willingness of some people to obtain data and release it even in the face of severe penalties.

[sibelian]

10. Thank you, I agree. nt