graedus

Like "terrorism", it's only "torture" when the other guys do it, while we introduce a fresh new euphemism to describe our own actions. The definitions of the words change each time the US acts.

Yeah, I thought so too. It looks like nytimes and wired ran the story on June 1, 2012 [0][1]. I think the only new piece of information is that the NSA specifically co-wrote it with Israel, according to Snowden.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ord...

[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/?p=42451

Because a big chunk of what we once might have thought of as the "left" in the US are really just cheerleaders for the blue team, without paying any attention to actual policy.

Of the remainder, a lot of people seem to buy the narrative that Obama's hands are in some sense tied, or believe that his judgement should be trusted and that he has our best interests at heart etc etc.

Well put, really puts into perspective how incredibly out of proportion and punitive this measure was.

I see your reasoning, but the "wider America" of which you speak - or at least a large portion of it - would still be calling for him to be tossed in prison (or worse) for being a "traitor" after he turned himself in. IOW I don't think it would help him much in the court of public opinion.

Further, the distinction between indiscriminately leaking and selective/targeted leaking is a real one but I don't think it will result in him being spared in any sense. I can't blame him for wanting to prolong media exposure instead of being locked up awaiting trial for "espionage" while the story quickly disappears from the headlines and from the national and global consciousness.

> [Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)] added: “These are countries that violate press freedoms every day. And yet [Snowden]’s seeking political asylum in those very countries where . . . if he were to pull a Snowden in these countries, they’d jail him immediately.”

...exactly as the US has attempted to do, on trumped-up espionage charges no less? The _only_ reason that didn't happen in this case is because he learned from previous leakers and was smart enough to protect himself by fleeing the country beforehand.

Indeed, just like it's OK for top officials to leak about what a terrific success the drone program is and how it doesn't kill any civilians (NB: anyone killed by a drone is considered a "combatant" by definition in the official language[0])

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

I didn't catch it all the first time either; luckily it is 6 seconds long and loops continuously, so you can take as long as you like to dissect it (or go to their site if you want to read about it instead). I think it's an effective way to drive home how fast the process is.

Huh? He didn't assert that the NSA has omniscience and the ability to instantly target, decrypt and analyze every piece of digital communication in the world. What he's talking about is the broad collection and storage of this data that can then be retroactively mined, possibly decrypted (for cases where encryption is even used) and analyzed when the sender and/or recipient becomes "interesting" to them.

Do you think he used his work phone to call Glenn Greenwald's personal phone or something? I think it can be rationally assumed that he used the best anonymizing techniques and encryption he's aware of to transmit the information.

Wait, since when was the point of smearing the leaker to affect how the NSA is managed? The problem is such smears, when made by politicians, are broadcast and reported upon nationally and end up diluting/derailing the important dialogue about the contents and implications of the leaked material itself.

David Brooks is among the most disgustingly boot-licking, power-worshiping authoritarians I've ever read in print, so his reaction here was not surprising at all. As always, here he is whining that people won't just shut up and trust the existing institutions and power structures without stopping to question whether they have earned that trust.

Another typical example: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/opinion/brooks-the-followe...

I had to look that up. Massively Parallel Processing.

I can understand that distinction, although I'd argue that pasting the guideline without comment to another user in the context of this particular issue implied that your stance was that this issue was one where the guideline applied. You might argue that his or her question was general but I think it's clear from the context that he or she was asking: "what channel should I use when something _like this_ happens?"

Anyway, not a big deal and no hostility intended - have a good weekend.

I don't think dfc's first reply or niggler's first reply contain any aggression or hostility whatsoever. As you said, pasting the guideline having done the opposite hours earlier was contradictory, so that was pointed out.

I should say it doesn't help that the first part of his explanation was that if he had followed the guideline -- using email instead of posting -- he wouldn't have gotten an answer as quickly as he would like. This immediately implies that exceptions are to be made as soon as the recommended action infringes on personal convenience, which would of course make the guideline meaningless.