• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Snowden and the Pulitzer

Skeptic Ginger

Nasty Woman
Skeptic Ginger
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
96,955
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Public-Service


Awarded to The Washington Post for its revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency, marked by authoritative and insightful reports that helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework of national security.

Awarded to The Guardian US for its revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency, helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy.
Click to expand...

The awards are for public service so is Snowden a public servant or traitor?
 
Apparently people disagree, including me. Looks more and more like history will disagree as well.
 
So for someone who revealed nothing of importance to the public and only important to terrorists, tell me what the Pulitzer committee was going by? You do know the WSJ is a Murdoch product now, right? He owns a Tabloid news that listened in to private phone conversations, apparently spying on people is just normal business.

Not that the WSJ articles are as slanted as Fox News (yet), but certainly they aren't neutral. I see the op ed author is a Conservative Party member.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
So for someone who revealed nothing of importance to the public and only important to terrorists, tell me what the Pulitzer committee was going by? You do know the WSJ is a Murdoch product now, right? He owns a Tabloid news that listened in to private phone conversations, apparently spying on people is just normal business.

Not that the WSJ articles are as slanted as Fox News (yet), but certainly they aren't neutral. I see the op ed author is a Conservative Party member.
Click to expand...

First, the committee didn't give Snowden the prize, they gave it to the Post and the Guardian. Second, this isn't an either or issue. Snowden can still be a total douche for helping terrorists avoid detection, while also doing the rest of us a great big favor by exposing the domestic spying program. History happens in the gray areas.
 
Chris L said:
First, the committee didn't give Snowden the prize, they gave it to the Post and the Guardian. Second, this isn't an either or issue. Snowden can still be a total douche for helping terrorists avoid detection, while also doing the rest of us a great big favor by exposing the domestic spying program. History happens in the gray areas.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they gave Snowden the prize. It a prize awarded to reporters not whistleblowers or do gooders.

So, it's a benefit we found out, but the guy who told us is a bad guy?
 
I think that on balance the Snowden revelations are a good thing.

The anti-Snowden arguments are typically very slimy.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
If Snowden is a traitor then so too was Chelsea Manning, Aldrich Ames, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Click to expand...
Any reason you left out Daniel Ellsberg?

How are Ames and the Rosenberg's analogous?

As for Manning, not only is that a proper analogy, they both did a lot of good, appeared to be acting on their conscience and I'd put Manning up there with Snowden, the information they revealed served an important purpose and they've sacrificed a lot for it.
 
The Pulitzer Prize committee has declared war on America. So for those keeping track, it's America vs. Pulitzer Prize Committee, Obama and CBS.
 
Did he prove that the Government was doing something illegal? Did he prove that the programs were being abused? That Clapper was lying to Congress? That there was no damage to our national security from the leaks? None of these things have been proven, and there was damage from the leaks, therefore, he is not vindicated. He is not even vindicated by the changes that have been made to the programs since they were only done to placate the public and not because it was proven that they were illegal or being abused. They simply found a way to meet the majority of their intelligence goals while changing how they operate to placate observers.

I'm guessing zero people have looked to the government for their side of the story.

Pat yourselves on the back! You really stuck it to the man this time!

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121564

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsro...t-assessment-of-the-us-intelligence-community

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html
 
Joey McGee said:
Did he prove that the Government was doing something illegal?
Click to expand...

Things can be Bad Things even though they're legal. That politicians make sure the right laws are in place before they spy on its citizens and allied leaders doesn't make it any better.

Apartheid was legal in South Africa. The Final Solution was legal in Nazi Germany. That doesn't make any more right.
 
Joey McGee said:
Did he prove that the Government was doing something illegal? Did he prove that the programs were being abused? That Clapper was lying to Congress? That there was no damage to our national security from the leaks? None of these things have been proven, and there was damage from the leaks, therefore, he is not vindicated. He is not even vindicated by the changes that have been made to the programs since they were only done to placate the public and not because it was proven that they were illegal or being abused. They simply found a way to meet the majority of their intelligence goals while changing how they operate to placate observers.

I'm guessing zero people have looked to the government for their side of the story.

Pat yourselves on the back! You really stuck it to the man this time!

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121564

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsro...t-assessment-of-the-us-intelligence-community

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html
Click to expand...

Heh.

Clapper is long on rhetoric, short on specifics regarding the damage done by Snowden.

And we know that Snowden exposed Clapper as a man who lied to Congress...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vFOax-Zzc
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Heh.

Clapper is long on rhetoric, short on specifics regarding the damage done by Snowden.

And we know that Snowden exposed Clapper as a man who lied to Congress...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vFOax-Zzc
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the last link in my post then Charlie? As we've been over many times, you're not the best at actually researching what we're talking about. Did you actually read the reports or have your made up your mind already?
 
Last edited:
Ryokan said:
Things can be Bad Things even though they're legal. That politicians make sure the right laws are in place before they spy on its citizens
Click to expand...
Citiizens were spied on? Where is the evidence of that?
and allied leaders doesn't make it any better.
Click to expand...
Oh we're very sorry and promise will never do anything like this again :)
Apartheid was legal in South Africa. The Final Solution was legal in Nazi Germany. That doesn't make any more right.
Click to expand...
Hysterical. Trying to catch terrorists and standard espionage is comparable to racial oppression and genocide. Someone was saying the anti-Snowden arguments were slimy?
 
My point was that making things legal doesn't necessarily make them right. The extreme examples were to drive that point home, not to compare them.
 
Ryokan said:
My point was that making things legal doesn't necessarily make them right. The extreme examples were to drive that point home, not to compare them.
Click to expand...
I covered this when I asked the question "Did he prove that the programs were being abused?" If you're not aware, the programs were carefully constructed to catch terrorists while guaranteeing civil liberties and were approved and overseen by all three branches of government. Did they fail? Were civil liberties abused? I haven't seen any evidence of this, therefore, he is not vindicated. What was wrong about the programs that is actually based in reality and not a hysterical interpretation of the facts? Ok you accept they were legal, democratic and constitutional, so why were they wrong in any way?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom