Except for the frustrated sarcasm(?) of ” Perhaps we should just suspend all security intelligence programs and call it a day.”… I’m in agreement with the validity of the points you make.

That however does not invalidate the validity of the points I made. Therein lies the conundrum. National Security concerns are valid and no doubt a proper variation of these programs is needed.
So too, are the concerns I cite, where we only have a law breaking, politically corrupt administration’s assurances that they are not being used in ways that are decidedly unconstitutional.

That we cannot see the ‘fire’ does not allow us to dismiss the massive amounts of ‘smoke’ that are evident.

Again I ask, “how can illegal but classified activity be exposed without breaking the law? Absent a minimum of trust in those elected to positions of power, oversight is impossible and the public legally helpless in the face of corruption.”

I would also point out that if we set the conditions for exposing governmental malfeasance that is being concealed within the rubric of “classified material” to be a willingness to go to jail, then precious few will be willing to make that sacrifice for the common good.

And if whistleblowing does not apply to governmental malfeasance that can only be exposed by the illegal release of classified material then whistleblowing is constrained by the power of those engaged in political corruption because Obama can direct that anything be classified such that no oversight is possible.

As you well know, it all comes down to trust and the Obama administration has repeatedly proven itself to be profoundly unworthy of our trust. The man and his administration blatantly lies every day for God’s sake.

“you have to have a touchingly naé¯ve view of government to believe that the 99.9999 percent of “metadata” entirely irrelevant to terrorism will not be put to some use, sooner or later.” M. Steyn

“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” – Valerie Jarrett — Nov. 2012

“The president has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.” Congresswoman Maxine Waters

Yes, Hussey was really something. I seem to recall that Leonard Whiting, Romeo, said he fell in love with her during the movie, but she wasn’t reciprocating, although they were friends.

Life doesn’t imitate art quite exactly.

That has always been one of the tenets of civil disobedience, for example. The law does not get suspended because you believe you’re a good guy.

Oh, and to not prosecute is to encourage contempt for the law and the spilling of more secrets. Perhaps we should just suspend all security intelligence programs and call it a day.

Apparently you have complete access to all the classified information and are also a national security expert, and so you know how much of the classified information is vital to national security and how much is not.

That’s sarcasm, by the way.

I agree that much that’s classified shouldn’t be. But quite a bit should. And the revealing of the identities of agents is hardly the only thing that matters if it were to be made public. There are many details of the fight against terrorists that should remain classified in order to keep them from the terrorists themselves.

The only time to be concerned with release of such information is when agents will die.

The government is massive and totalitarian, sunshine is needed.

I don’t see how they would either. Greenwald is an American citizen living in Brazil. I imagine he could be prosecuted if he returns to the US or its territories.

Thiessen is technically correct in that Greenwald did break American law. On the larger issue however, how can illegal but classified activity be exposed without breaking the law? Absent a minimum of trust in those elected to positions of power, oversight is impossible and the public legally helpless in the face of corruption.

Then there’s what is legal and what is morally correct. When those in authority are acting illegally and/or immorally and are politically corrupt, the greater good is served by public exposure. In such a circumstance, to prosecute is to perpetuate injustice.

Resulting in the condition that government is no longer of the people, by the people and for the people and has now, effectively perished from the earth.

I think prosecution might be a good idea. It would firmly establish that the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute. Over time, it may be possible to slap additional restrictions on the press….like, for example, Truth in Reporting. Make them vulnerable to law suits for erroneous reporting. Make them check their facts before reporting. Make them tell the truth about Conservative candidates or risk being sued out of business.

Look what has happened to the 2nd Amendment. There are a whole boatload of restrictions on the books. Look at the rest of the 1st Amendment, as it applies to religious liberty. I think it’s about time the 4th Estate got its wings clipped back a bit.

BTY, Neo, is that “I Recommend” bar down the left side of my computer screen (under the Monthly Archives) your recommended list? I recently re-watched that Romeo and Juliet version and loved it. I thought Olivia Hussey was an absolutely wonderful Juliet. I think I’m in love (again).

Waidmann