that the story is not about Snowden but about O'Donnell's own ability to interview sources and collect news without the government tracing his phone calls. The big story is that our press is no longer free, that we no longer have freedom of association in the electronic media and that our freedom of speech is chilled.
Clearly, O'Donnell should not be criticizing Snowden for his lack of understanding of the law. Greenwald is a lawyer and a good one at that. O'Donnell should be interviewing Greenwald about the legal meaning of the legal expression "chilling" a right and how this surveillance program does that in so far as electronic communications are concerned.
The press cannot participate in an intelligent discussion of this surveillance program unless they understand the legal issues at stake.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of shills out there who will, for either the public recognition and attention or a sum of money, say whatever they think that the powers that be in the world -- their sponsors, their bosses or the government -- want.
And also -- unfortunately -- those who are willing to say that they want to have the freedom to call, say, a source in Afghanistan or in Yemen or Russia or wherever without our government listing and keeping the data on the call -- the number of minutes and phone numbers involved -- are very few.
Our news media would rather just accept half-truths and lies fed to them by government and news wires anyway so what difference does it matter to them whether they are able to investigate and research the news accurately. O'Donnells program is very weak program.
I am disappointed and surprised that O'Donnell has so little understanding about what this surveillance program means for the news that he recites on the TV. Obviously he is not an investigative reporter.
Neither am I. But I can imagine what it means to a serious, enterprising reporters to learn that the government has kept records on the phone calls they have made to people whom the US would consider "enemies" and whom the reporter considers "sources" in other countries.
Imagine how a reporter would feel upon realizing that people who have perhaps revealed their identities, their political views and their geographical locations to the US government just by communicating with him/her on a story has been killed by drones. I am just imagining how I would feel in that reporter's place. Someone might think that my imagination has gone a bit wild, but the scenario I describe is a distinct possibility.
This surveillance does not affect my speech rights, but it affects the right of the free press and the speech rights of many including university scholars and others who might be studying controversial subjects. And the potential for abuse of this surveillance by, for example, a conservative or repressive government, is just frightening. Has it happened. You bet. Just think of East Germany.
Could it happen here? We appear to be on our way. Power corrupts. Total power corrupts totally. And this program is one step more toward total power.
I note that O'Donnell did not include young people -- let's be straightforward -- young nerds of the computer generation on his program. They might understand Snowden's thinking better than the oldsters he invited for his panel. He might try watching the program, The Big Bang if he wants to understand Snowden.
= new reply since forum marked as read
