Mr. Gregory interviewed Glenn Greenwald, reporter for the Guardian (UK) and post inteview, Mr. Greenwald tweeted this:
In real time, Mr. Gregory responded directly to the tweet explaining that he was posing the question that others have raised and wasn't subscribing to the theory that Mr. Greenwald in fact aided and abetted Mr. Snowden.
Mr. Greenwald explained to Mr. Gregory that Edward Snowden went to the Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post with the information he obtained and specifically outlined what should and should not be made public. Mr. Greenwald also explained that Mr. Snowden did this not to enrich himself, but to make public what he thought the American people had the right to know. Mr. Greenwald also stated that Mr. Snowden was most likely going to seek political asylum because the Obama Administration has been unprecedentedly aggressive in persecuting and arresting whistle blowers, and in the process have gone after reporters as well. He makes a valid assertion as evidenced by the Administration's surveillance of AP reporters.
While we don't disagree with Mr. Greenwald, the mistake that he made as a reporter is that he made himself part of the story. His columnist inclination allowed that to happen and now defenders of the surveillance program view his reporting to have an agenda. As we sit and write this column, we can not tell you the name of the Washington Post reporter who disclosed the PRISM program for instance. (Bart Gellman, by the way.)
After responding to the tweet, it was evident that Mr. Greenwald's accusation of criminalizing journalism had affected Mr. Gregory, as the hour went on, you could see his reflection of the exchange in his face. His question was a fair one, but you could see that the notion of being so closely in bed with the government, as Mr. Greenwald asserted, disturbed Mr. Gregory, who could only speculate how this was going to be perceived over the internet. Chuck Todd, on the other hand, seemed much more at ease when he mused about how much Mr. Greenwald was possibly involved in assisting Mr. Snowden and if his role went beyond anything of receiver of information. There are reporters and political geeks in the media, and Mr. Todd is definitely more of the latter, and as such doesn't want to rock the boat. Judge as you will, it just about knowing roles, and Mr. Todd did access it correctly that Mr. Greenwald attacked the premise of the question and did not answer it. It's debatable whether a reporter can be 'too close' to the story, but it you entertain that, Mr. Greenwald just might be because that tweet after the interview was too defensive, even in his role as news maker now.
There is no doubt that this is a debate that the American people needed to have and frankly our government officials were denying it to happen. Chuck Todd said that the American people have come to expect a certain level of transparency and the government needs to catch up. Mr. Greenwald accurately pointed out that James Clapper blatantly lied to Congress about bulk collection of data (that unbelievable even goes beyond the Patriot Act) on Americans. This column would love to know why that's not a big deal and if Congress was in fact fully briefed, why would it be necessary for Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) to ask the question in the first place?
Yet, all of our political leaders seem to be on the same page - they all want to see Edward Snowden extradited from 'where ever' and face trial for treason. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) said that she didn't vote for the Patriot Act or any of these data collection programs, but yet was concerned for Americans' safety, and that yes... he broke the law. It's a go-along type of statement. Congressman Rogers (R-MI), on the other hand, sees Mr. Snowden as an enemy of the state and seems to think that Mr. Greenwald should also bear some responsibility. Mr. Rogers said that Mr. Snowden's actions and words defied logic. (If he's loyal to America why is he flying from Hong Kong to Moscow to possibly Cuba?) Where government officials also haven't caught up with the public is the thinking that the extent of wrongfulness is not so cut and dry. But on down the line - Robert Gibbs, Dick Durbin, Tom Coburn, etc. - feel the program is constitutional and that Mr. Snowden needs to be brought to justice.
There was one thing that Senator Coburn said that caught our attention and gave us cause for alarm. The only reason it won't get the attention that it deserves is because of the nonsense above. Mr. Coburn said that Congress' approval rating was the lowest of all government agencies and that the military's approval rating was the highest, and given that, he said it was a good thing that the military was running the surveillance program. What? Did he just say that the military collects massive amounts of data on American citizens? The major concern is that if the military is running this program then civilian oversight is certainly going to be limited. It speaks to the larger picture of agencies like the NSA and CIA becoming more entwined with the military - just look at the military personnel being appointed to head these agencies.
Simply, it's just weird to be honestly discussing so much 'big brother' stuff, but this is where we are we guess. As we said before, with people putting so much of their personal information online, it's almost as if you're giving tacit permission to for people to look. Fine, but the government, in this case James Clapper, when we ask about data collection and it's extent, the American people deserve and can handle the truth, as long it is comes from our leaders. That way the debate can go forward without so much distrust and suspicious. But no, instead we have to find out from an individual who while giving us information that we deserved to know also fully understands his new fame, and hence self-importance. That last part is not a dig, it is to illustrate that his motives are unknown whereas at least a Congressman could say, and does say, that we're doing this to protect you.
Here's the consolation, despite all these politicians hard stance on the whistle blower, they've all said that there needs to be a conversation. On the program, they showed a the transcript of Howard Dean saying as much. Both Mr. Durbin and Ms. Fiorina said that this is a conversation that we must and and as Robert Gibbs said, it is incumbent upon the Administration to have this conversation. Well, if this is the case, and you're not going to bring it up, someone had to.
Panel of lawmakers: Assistant Democratic Leader Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and immigration “Gang of 8” member, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK); Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI); and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).
Roundtable: NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; Democratic Mayor of Atlanta Kasim Reed; Fmr. Chair and CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina; and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
Post Script: Congressman Rogers said he wouldn't be surprised if Vladimir Putin had advanced knowledge of Mr. Snowden's flight itinerary. We find this funny because of course he did. We're not surprised of the dispute with regard to Mr. Snowden's extradition papers from Hong Kong either. As vindictive competitors, why wouldn't Russia and China want to stick it to the U.S. when they could It's not like the U.S. wouldn't do the same - like three little kids fighting for all the marbles.
Also, we're going to come back with another column on Immigration. It just didn't make sense to include that commentary here.
No comments:
Post a Comment