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!
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!