Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
20. He didn't say that he would be choosing a "handful" of journalists.
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 07:59 PM
Aug 2013

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

He said he wanted to choose an unspecified number of journalists from "each country," independent of his "bias" -- in other words, disregarding US interests.

But even if he had said he'd only share documents with a "handful" of people, I don't trust his judgement as to which journalists can be trusted. He's already shared documents containing IP addresses with a journalist from a Chinese newspaper. He was either deliberately trying to harm the interests of the US or he just didn't care.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/snowden-sought-booz-allen-job-gather-evidence-nsa-surveillance?page=all


"If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published."

IMO, it all depends on your objective. If your primary interest is in becoming informed & reigning KittyWampus Aug 2013 #1
Home Truths, Ma'am The Magistrate Aug 2013 #2
Yes, and I simply can't read any of those posts anymore. I was trying to get a balanced view but kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #3
stasi-bot is my particular favourite. n/t Whisp Aug 2013 #5
Sounds about right. Just Saying Aug 2013 #8
+1 Jamaal510 Aug 2013 #11
You're complaining about name-calling? ljm2002 Aug 2013 #15
Hey! Zip it, you emoprog far left reactionary screamer firebagger! Marr Aug 2013 #47
Snowden is irrelevant bowens43 Aug 2013 #4
He's absolutely relevant when he's in possession of information that could endanger lives. pnwmom Aug 2013 #6
He said from the very beginning that he wanted the info vetted so that possibly harmful Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #19
He didn't say that he would be choosing a "handful" of journalists. pnwmom Aug 2013 #20
He did not give the Chinese anything they did not already have Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #41
He gave them IP addresses. They didn't know which IP addresses we'd been targeting pnwmom Aug 2013 #42
I don't believe it did any such thing. It was fairly benign information Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #43
come on. robinlynne Aug 2013 #62
If he wasn't capable of vetting the information, maybe he shouldn't have leaked it? bhikkhu Aug 2013 #45
It is a ridiculous argument. Of course he should have leaked it and then as he did, find Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #50
Leak it first and vet it afterwards? That doesn't make sense. pnwmom Aug 2013 #55
On the contrary, the secret information makes him extremely relevant jeff47 Aug 2013 #12
When he needs more money he could sell the secrets to anyone willing to pay. AlinPA Aug 2013 #13
If that had been his goal he could have done that in the beginning Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #38
Maybe he already has, but who can say for sure? AlinPA Aug 2013 #48
How can we rule that out? How would we know? n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #54
It would not make logical sense to go to all the trouble he did Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #59
He couldn't have continued working while he "raked it in" without risking the prison sentence pnwmom Aug 2013 #60
Thanks for injecting some sanity War Horse Aug 2013 #7
I'm anti-surveillance but i'm cautious about Snowden for this reason AZ Progressive Aug 2013 #9
*****DER SPIEGEL IS WORKING WITH THE CIA!!!**** Cause GG said, or will say they are... uponit7771 Aug 2013 #10
Me thinks Angela Merkel protests to much about friends spying on friends.... midnight Aug 2013 #14
Me, too. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #16
The first Snowden was nothing more than a fabrication. A Potemkin man, as it were....... AverageJoe90 Aug 2013 #17
That's Der Spiegel's determination. wtmusic Aug 2013 #18
He trusted Spiegel's judgement on this. Why shouldn't we? n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #22
You can say any of the leaks endangered Americans' lives. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23
Maybe they shouldn't be doing things that could hurt us. pnwmom Aug 2013 #25
Well so far those "things" are only in your imagination. wtmusic Aug 2013 #30
The "pronouncement" as to the risk came from SPIEGEL, not from the administration. pnwmom Aug 2013 #31
Spiegel is a news corporation, which is a business run for profit bhikkhu Aug 2013 #46
Exactly. He's said that he's planning to release his documents to journalists pnwmom Aug 2013 #49
True. And some of us didn't NEED him. The debate was in progress. DevonRex Aug 2013 #21
Since you don't know - at all - whether he's caused any harm wtmusic Aug 2013 #24
He and Greenwald have claimed that they have documents that could cause pnwmom Aug 2013 #26
They could possibly cause great harm to our clandestine, illegal security apparatus wtmusic Aug 2013 #27
Right. Every other major country in the world can keep on spying, pnwmom Aug 2013 #32
Are you really that frightened? wtmusic Aug 2013 #33
Do you know that little history? Here's an example of American spies who saved lives. pnwmom Aug 2013 #34
We can always learn more, can't we. wtmusic Aug 2013 #36
You're ignoring the point of the OP. pnwmom Aug 2013 #39
Please tell me you're not comparing the WOT to WWII. wtmusic Aug 2013 #37
WOT? pnwmom Aug 2013 #40
You know, just because you repeat shit over and over again doesn't make it true. Th1onein Aug 2013 #28
Same goes. n/t Just Saying Aug 2013 #29
What did I say that isn't true? n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #35
You would know, I guess. nt Hekate Aug 2013 #51
Is that how you "win" an argument? With a personal insult? Th1onein Aug 2013 #57
You made me LOL:"You know, just because you repeat shit over and over again doesn't make it true." Hekate Aug 2013 #58
Well, they keep on and ON and ON with this bullshit about how Snowden endangered lives. Th1onein Aug 2013 #61
One of the authors of this (July 1) Spiegel piece is Laura Poitras. deurbano Aug 2013 #44
You're right. The article is sympathetic toward Snowden. So there's no reason to doubt pnwmom Aug 2013 #53
Good OP, pnwmom. KnR for the ones engaging your OP with thoughtfulness. Hekate Aug 2013 #52
Thanks, hekate. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There are two Snowdens: t...»Reply #20