The following is a comment that I wrote and tried to post on the " https://firstlook.org/theintercept/" website, in response to some who fault Greenwald and his team for not dumping all the information at once. To establish a record, I have made a decision to post here in my blog all comments that are blocked by the torturers from posting on that website.
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Entering into agreements suggests instantiation of a contract, written or oral, which requires prior knowledge of the terms of the agreement, and the implications of its breach. Once parties enter into an agreement, it is dishonourable – and perhaps worse – for either party to up and violate the agreement on a whim. My understanding is that ES and GG's team, arrived at a binding understanding/agreement which required that release of the documents be conditioned upon what cannot be but exhaustive examination of the national security value of each single document in order to make a determination that the information WOULD NOT compromise the security of the nation. This is because there may be components of the information that it may not be in the national or public interest to release. And the team must obviously carefully make that determination.
This process cannot be easy, and most likely employs the expertise of persons with legal training as journalism credentials alone, although very helpful, may not be sufficient to accomplish this. Snowden is not a traitor. Nor is the staff of journalists on this website who are working in compliance with that agreement. If Snowden was a traitor, all he had to do is DO EXACTLY WHAT SOME CLAMOUR FOR: INDISCRIMINATELY DUMP OF THE DOCUMENTS.
This determination must be made because not all classified material meets the national security test. Some of the classified material falls under ' Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.' of the 'Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information'. The very act of the classification of activities for purposes of evading accountability; hiding possible criminality; embarrassment etc, automatically exempts it from the shielding and protections that national secrecy provides otherwise.
Just one example: reading the emails of Angela Merkel and Dilma of Brazil, both non-terrorist allied leaders of democratic, non-terrorist nations, is a case in point. The fact that there is no national security value in those activities was implied in the President's apology to Merkel, accompanied by a pledge to not continue the activity. One would be hard pressed to use terrorism as a justification for such activities and the President would never have pledge to stop an activity which had a national security value, let alone apologize for it. Another example is the barbaric torture of innocents with advanced remote electromagnetic weapons systems under mind control programs which are classified. Like other fellow victims who are dead now, I may not have long to live from the brutal abuse. "
Comments