It's not exactly the role of a newspaper to "submit people for prosecution", is it? Could you flesh out a little bit what you mean by the WaPo taking an active role in arranging prosecutions? There's a difference between taking a position on clemency and a position on prosecution, isn't there?
At any rate: am I adequately summarizing your belief by saying that regardless of what they write, if the Washington Post Editorial Page genuinely believes that Snowden shouldn't be given clemency, then they should also believe that the Washington Post itself should be shuttered (or turned over to a different team)?
> There's a difference between taking a position on clemency and a position on prosecution, isn't there?
Suppose the U.S. manages to exfiltrate Snowden from Russia somehow. Do you seriously believe that, in the absence of clemency, there is less than a 100% chance he'll be prosecuted? Being against clemency without taking a position on prosecution is kind of like advocating jumping off a cliff but not taking a position on whether or not you fall to the ground. There may be a semantic distinction, but no practical one.
> am I adequately summarizing your belief by saying that regardless of what they write, if the Washington Post Editorial Page genuinely believes that Snowden shouldn't be given clemency, then they should also believe that the Washington Post itself should be shuttered (or turned over to a different team)?
And that they should also be charged and prosecuted as Snowden's willing accomplices. Yes. At least if they want to be honorable (and logically consistent).
Look at the Post's justification for opposing clemency:
"The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. (It was also not permanent; the law authorizing it expires next year.) Worse — far worse — he also leaked details of basically defensible international intelligence operations: cooperation with Scandinavian services against Russia; spying on the wife of an Osama bin Laden associate; and certain offensive cyber operations in China."
It was the Post (and the Guardian) who made the decisions to publish these documents, not Snowden! He had neither the time not the inclination to make these kinds of editorial decisions. He grabbed what he could and ran. (And let's not forget that before he did this, he tried to address the problem -- which everyone concedes was a real and very serious problem -- through the "proper channels" and was smacked down.) He then relied on others, including the Post, to filter what he had and decide what should be published and what should remain secret. If things were published that should not have been, then the Post is at least as culpable as Snowden if not more so.
For at least the next 4 years (barring impeachment), there is no chance that Snowden can set foot in the US without being immediately arrested and prosecuted.
I think I understand where you're coming from.
I don't agree: I don't think the Post's culpability in spreading Snowden's leak controls the appropriateness of charging Snowden. I think the two are separable issues. I understand why you don't.
Further, I'm closer to the Post editorial's position on clemency for Snowden than to the ACLU's (absent substantial new information about what Snowden did, I'd be unhappy if he spent time in prison). While I could quibble with the examples the Post chose to illustrate their position, I find the logic mostly agreeable.
Regardless of what they've reported, I think it's incumbent on the Post's editorial team to publish their genuinely held opinions on public policy issues. If they believe what they wrote, I think it's important that they published it, instead of pretending that their opinion is different to retain consistency.
But after reading everything you've written, I've come to the conclusion that regardless of the Post's position, it's a badly written editorial:
* It uses dumb examples (like PRISM) that don't fully support its argument and so you can't really reach an informed conclusion about it without a lot of previous context.
* By failing to mention the Post's own role in the story, the Post loses more or less all its credibility, which make the Editorial toothless.
Like I said, I get why we disagree. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this!
Let's leave aside the question of what actions should be taken. The important question is this: Does the Post bear any responsibility for the decisions of its news editors to run the PRISM stories?
At any rate: am I adequately summarizing your belief by saying that regardless of what they write, if the Washington Post Editorial Page genuinely believes that Snowden shouldn't be given clemency, then they should also believe that the Washington Post itself should be shuttered (or turned over to a different team)?