Leaderboard

Wow! that article does not live up to the intellectual standards of the New Yorker. First, the author claims that there's nothing new or surprising about the revelations. According to the author "any marginally attentive citizen" would have some notion of what was going on. Yet, on the other hand, revealing these obvious things rises above the revelation of actual secrets to journalists which the authors says is "normal even indispensable". Then, as his proof that too much was revealed, he says the Post would not have revealed all of it. Is that proof? And he links to the post article that has no such proof. Perhaps he thinks that by putting a link next to non-evidence, the reader will assume that the evidence actually exists at the link. Finally, the author talks about Snowden's motives of "ego" rather than "his conscience", as if people who leak are typical staid folk who want not to rock the boat. One must understand, as McArdle rightly points out that "Whistleblowers are Weird". If we find that Snowden simply wanted to embarrass the government, or that he was working with the Chinese, or something like that, that would be news. Stuff that this author throws at him are empty smears, not much different from folk who are saying he is a loner, nerdy, loser who wanted his shot in the spotlight. Instead of "Snowden is no hero", the article should be titled "I Jeffery Toobin am not a real journalist"

Lost in the "security vs. liberty" debate, is the alternative of abandoning the Fortress America defense in favor of bringing the fight to the enemy. If we fought a real war against radical Islam, signal intelligence would be something that could be limited in scope and targeted to support offensive operations.