Snowden and Greenwald DISAGREE on question of withholding harmful docs.

[pnwmom]

Both acknowledge that the recent leak about government surveillance in the Middle East is harmful. Snowden has speculated that the UK government leaked the harmful documents to the Independent. (The Independent strongly denies that the govt. was its source.)

Snowden says it must have been the UK government because he's never given the documents to a journalist who wouldn't screen them for information that might place people in danger
BUT Greenwald says he never made such an agreement.

Clearly, Snowden never had the control of the documents that he claimed he had. And Greenwald cannot be trusted -- by his own admission.


http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-uk-government-independent-glenn-greenwald-2013-8

The Independent's story — about a secret UK surveillance base in the Middle East — comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden," according to the story.

SNIP


Here's the statement from Snowden:

"I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.

"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others.

SNIP

Greenwald also pushed back against any notion that he was being limited in his reporting on the subject:

I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way.

SNIP

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. No, Greenwald was talking about not having an agreement with the UK government

If you read the article BI is referring to:

One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base

And what the Independent article said:

The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government’s request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that could damage national security.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-secret-mideast-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html

You probably should have worked that out, since Greenwald would be very unlikely to call Snowden's conditions 'bullying tactics'.

There is also a huge difference between "placing a person in danger" (what Snowden's statement was about), and "damaging national security" (what the Independent claims The Guardian had agreed with the UK govt not to do).

[creeksneakers2]

2. Not much response here

Some here said the release on Britain's Middle East gathering contained no revelations in the public interest and could be harmful to legitimate security precautions. Those opinions were met with hostile responses. Now that Snowden says the material shouldn't have been published and Greenwald doesn't defend the disclosures there is silence here on DU.

Snowden claims here he's been responsible but we've just had the Washington Post have to cut out much of what Snowden gave them on intelligence budgets because America could be endangered from the revelations.

[randome]

3. Der Spiegel did the same.

So far, the word 'hero' in the 21st century does not mean what it meant in the 20th. No one is standing up to anyone. They steal stuff then run and hide.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]