Greenwald was criticized for saying that the USG "should be on it's knees begging every day", a clearly inflammatory thing to say. To act like the criticism is the result of some grand government conspiracy is a bit much.
There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.
On another note, the idea of a dead mans switch that harms the government of Country A is probably an attractive target for other governments that want to harm Country A.
"There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of ... a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil."
Of course such determinations should be left to the professionals, our Supreme Leader, the oh-so-popular Congress and the stalwart defenders of liberty and justice: the Courts -- which are all so trustworthy, moral, and competent.. and who would never hide anything under the pretense of "national security" to cover their own asses, to grab more wealth and power, or keep the public from knowing of atrocities and crimes they, their buddies or their lackeys have commited.
At the very least, deciders chosen by a government elected by the people, whatever value that has, is of more value than a single self-chosen person who happened to have the correct level of access and skills to access more documents than he was supposed to.
Ostensibly elected (or selected, if the election was decided through fraud) in a system where more than 40% of eligible voters are too disgusted, cynical, or apathetic to vote.
In a system where elections are so influenced by money that billions are spent on advertising candidates. Where virtually all the discussion of the candidates is about their personalities and presentation (such as whether a candidate wore a flag lapel, or how he golfed) rather than about their policies and stances on concrete, important issues.
In a system where the majority of those who do vote are embarrasingly ignorant of politics, history, and the candidates and parties for whom they're voting (largely thanks to the horrendous media coverage mentioned above, and the atrocious education system in the United States).
In a system where the elected candidates can do the opposite of what he campaigned on virtually without consequence or most of their constituents noticing (thanks to the media, yet again).
In a system where gerrymandering has effectively guaranteed the seats of most members of Congress, no matter how poorly they perform. (Given the record low approval ratings of Congress, virtually all of them should been thrown out ages ago, but that's not going to happen any time soon.)
In a system where there are only two parties who agree on most issues, and collude to keep third parties and serious alternative from ever being viable.
In a system where the people appointed by the elected/selected politicians get to make decisions outside the (incredibly flawed) legal process, in secret, and with virtually no oversight or accountability to the public.
In a system that tortures prisoners, violates human rights, starts unprovoked wars that kill millions of people.
I'm sorry, but I just don't place much trust in such a system. And I applaud whistleblowers who risk their lives to expose wrongdoings.
But, few congressmen had any idea of the true extent of this; and Clapper has already admitted to being untruthful to them.
Which leaves the president. You can't believe that providing 1 bit of information every four years is sufficient to maintain a democracy, can you?
While there are allowed exceptions, a Republic operates on a default assumption of public access and transparency in government, and the liberty and privacy of the individual. The converse system, where there is a presumption of secrecy in government, and transparency of the individual, is a tyranny, as government, the people's servant, has become their master.
Not insofar as a vigilante is defined as a non-governmental actor working to change the government. If you don't trust the process and that set of possible people who act outside it, you don't trust anyone or thing at all. You can hold this position in any particular case, but not as a general rule, at least if you want to be able to act coherently in these types of situations.
> There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.
Oh please, there's enough outrage to go around for a whistleblower publishing stuff that most foreign intelligence services already knew and suspected, and even if it weren't that way still accted accordingly as though was real, but God let the public know, lest they know how tight the chain is.
It is extremely unlikely those documents have anything of strategic value for other nations; it is almost absolutely certain they are important for the public.
> b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.
No, he's not the ultimate arbiter, that's what the US government tried to be, in secret, until Snowden stepped up. And others with access are free to step up as well.
30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.
Snowden didn't do that, the USG appointed him to that role by not doing an adequate job of it themselves. Snowden is merely a symptom, not a cause.
There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.
On another note, the idea of a dead mans switch that harms the government of Country A is probably an attractive target for other governments that want to harm Country A.