http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...

Snowden directly addresses your point in his live chat: "More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...

You seem like the sort of fellow who ought to own a bridge.

But journalists can and do make mistakes interpreting the documents. Here's one example of a report trying to set the record straight: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...

There is a long list of former gov't employees who went through those channels and found them sorely lacking. In other words, people who are in a position to know better, who disagree with you. Radack, Drake, and Binney, to name a few.

>Right now, part of what Snowden is saying with ghostwriting help from Wikileaks is not making sense.

You sound a lot like Walter Pincus, whose employer had to print a retraction[1] over the baseless accusations he made in this column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questi...

I suggest you have a look at that story from a critical perspective: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spying-scandal...

[1]Correction:

A previous version of this Fine Print column incorrectly said that an article by journalist Glenn Greenwald was written for the WikiLeaks Press blog.The article, about filmmaker Laura Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. officials, was written for the online publication Salon and first appeared April 8, 2012. Its appearance on the WikiLeaks Press blog two days later was a reposting. This version has been corrected.

A previous version of the column also asserted that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, during a May 29 interview with Democracy Now, “previewed” the story that Greenwald wrote for the Guardian newspaper about the Obama administration’s involvement in the collection of Americans’ phone records. There is no evidence that Assange had advance knowledge of the story; the assertion was based on a previously published interview in which Assange discussed an earlier surveillance project involving the collection of phone records.The assertion has been taken out of this version.

The column also does not mention Snowden’s past work in the intelligence community. The lack of this context may have created the impression that Snowden’s work for Booz Allen Hamilton gave him his first access to classified surveillance programs.

I'm not convinced we would be hearing anything from him at all - claims or otherwise - were he currently on US soil.

I note that the same standard never seems to apply to the other side of the argument. You don't hear people say, "Well, naturally I'll dismiss everything that Obama says on the NSA scandal because he used cocaine and didn't even stand trial, much less go to prison, for it."

Digression:

I do not myself care that Obama used drugs. I think those drugs should have been legal. I think it was courageous of Obama to admit to drug use even if he did so in a way that did not lead to legal repercussions.

But I also do not care that Snowden violated the law in his whistleblowing. I think his whistleblowing should have been legal. And I think it was courageous of Snowden to blow the whistle, even if he did so in a way that did not lead to the most severe legal repercussions possible.

End digression.

But no, I do not think that I made an analogy, nor that my observation was flawed. People who say, "I won't listen to Snowden unless he turns himself in" are not making an argument about Snowden's facts, they're making an argument about his character. They're saying, "I won't listen to Snowden because he isn't willing to suffer every possible negative consequence of his actions." It doesn't matter if his actions were related to the spying or not.

Those same people never demand the same of Obama (or any of the other government representatives). Those representatives can, and do, in fact, grant themselves and their allies full immunity from negative repercussions, and are still treated respectfully. This is hypocrisy on the part of those who demand that Snowden turn himself in.

And finally, if you want an example of Obama's less-than-perfect moral character that directly relates to the matter under discussion, there is his claim that he was against warrantless wiretaps, and campaigning as someone who was against them.

How would that modification to the analogy change the outcome? You can't dismiss every insightful statement or independently verifiable piece of factual information someone says about drug policy just because that person is a crackhead. That's just the ad hominem fallacy.

What bearing does which country he's in have on the content of the disclosures? Do you think he fabricated the PRISM slides since he happens to be in Russia right now?

So in order for you to take Snowden's claims seriously, he has to either claim that what he did is legal or willingly go to prison for the rest of his life? That seems pretty irrational.

Do you not see how completely bonkers it is to look at somebody who has already given you valuable information at great personal cost and demand that he suffer more for your benefit? Why on earth would you feel he owes that to anybody?

Personally, I tend to agree with Snowden — there are too many powerful people who want to destroy him for him to get a fair shake here. You are right that we could be wrong — but I don't see how that matters.

Anyone saying that Snowden should be in the US "awaiting trial" is a naive utter moron.

What difference would that make? I am a naturalized American citizen who speaks three languages (English, German and Hebrew. Four if you count broken Spanish). Would that lead you to put a lot of stock in my position?