Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by jccc on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @03:04PM (#11029309)

You must be aware that people actually have called the Snowden journalists collaborators who should be prosecuted, that this was in fact a major issue in how the story has been received.

Why would you call them "his informal team of assistants?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by tptacek on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @03:29PM (#11029500)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you're thinking of someone in particular who has suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted, you should put your weird questions to that person, not me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by jccc on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @03:56PM (#11029688)

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/prosecuting-glenn-greenwald/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/peter-king-glenn-gr...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/...

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/would_ag_holder_...

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/eric-holder-says-he-...

Taken literally from the entire first page on Google:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prosecute%20gree...

At least one sitting U.S. Congressman called for it, David Gregory threw it directly in Greenwald's face on Meet the Press, the question was even brought to the U.S. Attorney General.

Against that backdrop if someone calls these journalists "assistants" to Snowden, it really shouldn't be out of bounds to ask about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by tptacek on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @04:28PM (#11029904)

You are not out of bounds asking any of those people to answer for what they said, but please stop asking me to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by jccc on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @04:54PM (#11030087)

With absolutely sincere respect, given your credentials and your role on this forum, I will ask you to answer for what you say when it -- albeit perhaps unintentionally -- entails false innuendo.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by tptacek on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:08PM (#11030202)

There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by jccc on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @05:27PM (#11030364)

For whatever it's worth:

> albeit perhaps unintentionally

You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators.

The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo.

(Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture S... by jccc on Thursday February 04, 2016 @08:54AM (#11033843)

Note, unintentionally -- When an influential voice on HN albeit unintentionally spreads false and damaging innuendo, then says he should not be challenged, what is the appropriate way to say that, yes, in fact he should be challenged?

(His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)

[ Parent | on HN ]