I don't know how much clearer I can make the point that Snowden's credibility is highly relevant to the newsworthy claims Snowden is himself making that aren't backed up by the source material he leaked.
I've said over & over here: I agree that his credibility isn't relevant to the contents of 3 Powerpoint slides.
You keep repeating that you think it's relevant. You still haven't actually said how. What difference does it make? Does the public deserve less of an assurance that these systems aren't being abused because one source made a claim that wasn't evidential, nor presented as evidence?
I'll repeat myself now: What makes you think Snowden himself, or anyone on the pro-democratic-debate side of this, wants you to take his claims at face value?
I'm not smart enough to understand this comment. Seriously. I just don't see what you're getting at. Yes, if Snowden's claims don't matter, neither does his credibility; but since that's simply the inverse of what I just said, you must be trying to make a different point.
Your original argument, as I understand it, was that since Snowden made a claim in an interview that was not backed by evidence, and that claim was reported as news by others, current and future accusations against his personal credibility are not propaganda but legitimate rebuttals to those unsourced claims.
What I'm saying is I'm willing to grant that these offhand, unsourced statements, made in context of the man explaining his own motivations, should not be treated as anything more. Further, I'll grant that regardless of Snowden's personal credibility or lack thereof-- his credibility is unimportant. Further, I expect Snowden would agree with me, since he's said that he came forward so that this would not be about him, but about the questions we should be demanding answers to from our government. Questions to which Snowden himself is completely irrelevant.
It's because of that irrelevance that accusations leveled at his personal credibility, and thus at his personal statements, absolutely are propagandistic poisoning of the well aimed at discrediting his very real evidence.
Although in fairness, many of them may be mere journalistic incompetence.
The rest of the slides might have more conclusive evidence that contradicts the tech companies' and government's statements. We should be asking for those slides to be authenticated and published.
Snowden has also taken "credit" for leaking the Verizon order, though there is speculation on that front. We are to believe there are many more to come.
In any event, this isn't about PRISM. This is about what the government should be allowed to keep secret, and who should be allowed to decide that.
I never claimed to speak for anyone else. But "I'm just talking about a random blog post" strikes me as rather feeble.
I mean, respond to whatever you like. But you would have to be very shortsighted, or very partisan, to look at the heart of what's happening right now and see some PowerPoint slides or a well-produced video.
I believe I am neither and that I do not see the same thing in this story that you do. But either way, you're on a thread commenting on my comment on Juan Cole's article, which quotes a substantial portion of that article; I do not think you can reasonably accuse me of distracting from the "real" issue here.
It seems like your complaint is better addressed to Juan Cole.
Oh, I don't believe you are either-- apologies. But I also believe you see more here than you're letting on, and I'm happy to leave it at that.
I think my complaint, such as it is, would not productively be addressed anywhere. As I said, there are thousands of stories, and I'm not usually one to piss in the ocean. But it pains me to see intelligent people engage with toxic arguments, and that's why I decided to reply to you specifically.
That, and to pass the time :) I do take this subject very seriously, perhaps more than I have cause to, and I hope that isn't coming off as animosity.
I understand the comment. We need only find Snowden credible enough to ask the NSA about the truthfulness of his claims (and then assess their credibility). To me the bar would be little higher than someone leaving a cushy job to seek asylum elsewhere. I'd believe almost anything they say enough to want to investigate further. And I'd find suspicious almost any attempt to discredit them.
I've said over & over here: I agree that his credibility isn't relevant to the contents of 3 Powerpoint slides.