The rationale for censorship of Greenwald's article is unconvincing, as that rationale is contradicted even by other people who agree with the censorship.

As the story is already running elsewhere, it is unconvincing that there is a pressing need for this particular outlet to suppress it.

That isn't the rationale that the editors used to make copy suggestions - that's the rationale that Greenwald is projecting onto them. I suggest reading the email thread he posted on his blog - it does not make him look very good.

If other outlets want to put their reputations on the line for something you can't vet, do you want to jump into the mud with them? The intercept decided no, seems pretty simple.