1. brian says

    I tend to look askance at any journalist who is too close to government. Ruth Marcus appears to fit the bill. She’s also got a smug look on her face which I find irritating.

  2. says

    Not sure what the point of this clip is but hope Towleroad isn’t getting into this vicious and dangerous controversy simply because Greenwald is gay.

  3. anon says

    About 75-80% of the press corp in DC is the “press release brigade”. Essentially part of the PR machinery that makes use of mass media to get various things out to the public. There’s no investigative reporting involved or the writing of original copy. All they do is summarize statements written by PR firms. This is very easy work if you can get it. Many of them are not even journalism majors or english majors, but “communications” majors. So much of this goes on now that in order to get any publicity, firms need to use social media because the airwaves and print journalism are bottlenecks.

  4. terry says

    greenwald and snowden should face charges for any personal who’s lives were endangered by their spreading of classified information. greenwald makes strawman arguements and his sexual orientation is never mentioned and to throw it in is yet another strawman tactic. He asks and answers his own questions, that is not an arguement. Let snowden stay with putin, that great protector of human rights.

  5. ratbastard says

    Yes, she is obviously a $shill$. There are basically 3 main types of self described advocates and operatives:

    Paid shills (including lobbyist)

    Useful idiots

    True believers (the smallest percentage)

    And a combinstion of all or some of the above.

    Most people don’t fall into any of these categories, and are apathetic, middle of the road, followers, low information (ignorant), or a combination of the above.

    The above exist on the self described left and right.

    Look at TR comments and you’ll see no shortage of the more extreme types listed above.

    And assuming Snowden is kosher (a big assumption) his actions have both positives and negatives.

  6. Eric says


    Where is your proof that any lives have been endangered? Show us the proof. You can’t, because there isn’t any. Same with Manning.


    Yes, God forbid Towleroad report on anything more substantive than celebrity news as our republic goes down the tubes and takes the rest of the world with it. Anyone that isn’t white, rich, and straight, should be the first to be concerned about government surveillance and control like this, because what we have here is a system that is totally out of control and has been unchained from the Constitution and set us up for turnkey tyranny, and among the first groups that will suffer when that switch is flipped is the minorities that have always been persecuted.

  7. Andrew says

    I agree with Terry above, both Greenwald and Snowden should face charges for what they did, and severe penalties if convicted.

  8. Cd in DC says

    I can’t possibly defend her, no one else writes columns about not having anything to write and compares her own colleagues to Shaza Riza and Paul Wolfowitz but she really means “insuperable,” above it all.

  9. Michael says

    Eric, There were lives endangered because of Manning. Various riots across Afghanistan, including beheadings in one of our embassies there. Also uprisings across the globe. While we here in America read those cables and immediately forgot their content, other places in the world didn’t. That compromised security.

  10. Michael Sawyer says

    I agree with some of his points, but Greenwald irritates the snot out of me. He has to be the ONLY one talking, he CANNOT handle any question or comment that disagrees with him, and conducts most exchanges with him interrupting and trying to sabotage other peoples points. An insecure little man with a big story.

  11. David From Canada says

    Snowden is too young and idealistic and has made some poor decisions. I’m not on his team.

  12. Eric says


    False. Manning didn’t even leak “top secret” information, and if you look at the official record, three different US governmental agencies went on the record and said that the information leaked did not result in any harm.

    Also, I point you to Myth #5 in the following article from “The Nation”:

    “But in the three-year span since these leaks came out, there is no evidence of a single civilian or soldier or even spy being harmed by the documents’ release. (I’ve written at greater length for TomDispatch about the accusations of Manning and Wikileaks having “blood on their hands” come loudest from the same pols and hacks who backed the Iraq War and Obama’s Afghan Surge.) Yes, two US ambassadors were recalled from Latin American countries, but this is hardly the diplomatic Armageddon that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton luridly promised us.”
    — Chase Madar, Seven Myths About Bradley Manning, The Nation, 3 June 2013

  13. Michael says

    Eric, I was in Afghanistan, after Manning’s leaks there was a surge in attacks in Afghanistan. Including insurgents, and their new sympathizers, walking into an embassy and beheading afghan and US citizens.
    You’re getting a bunch if second hand information, I was there, I saw the change in climate when Manning leaked those documents. The same thing happened when that pastor in Florida threatened to burn some Qurans.
    We live in a world where information is traded instantly, however the way we perceive information here is not the same as the rest of the world. There are repercussions for events, even if it’s not in your own backyard.

  14. MuchMuchMunching says

    I will make you a bet that all the people making ‘arrest and charge’ comments here are white males.

    Sorry to generalize, but gay white males are the most bigoted group I’ve ever seen outside of straight white males.

    If Towleroad deigns to put up anything about Lesbians, it gets maybe two comments. Stuff like this – where position and male privilege are coming into question – are the hot button issues.

    You should be ashamed of yourselves. But I doubt you can even see what you did wrong.

  15. RonCharles says

    If the Islamist terrorists, or agents of any rogue regime, whom Edward Snowden supports, were to set off a bomb in any gay bar in the world, or at any gay event anywhere in the world, or even on a plane that Glenn Greenwald and his husband were on, Edward Snowden would be cheering the terrorists on, even if he could only do it secretly. Gays should be thinking about that one!

  16. Ryan says

    @ Michael the topic is about Snowden, not Manning. For good or bad, Manning is already in prison. Snowden didn’t release the diplomatic cables, so it’s a complete strawman to bring that up as an example of how snowden put anyone in “danger.” Snowden put no one in any danger.

    Furthermore, should any leak that contains wrong doing or corruption ever lead to riots in other countries, that is not the fault of the leaker. That’s the fault of the US government for breaking our own laws and constitution, as well add the actual err rioters, who are ultimately responsible for their own lawless actions.

  17. Rafa in Toronto says

    Glenn Greenwald is awesome. He argues with such sharp intelligence and strong conviction, delivered with refreshing sincerity, at breakneck speed, in a way which is nonetheless very clear and also very entertaining. Glenn Greenwald and Rachel Maddow are my favourite journalists.

  18. JJ says

    @Michael, if the violence you allege was in response to Manning’s release, it was in response to the war crimes they exposed, which Manning had a duty to expose. The people responsible for the violence are those who committed it, and perhaps, indirectly, those who killed civilians trying to collect the dead and injured–which is what the released video showed. Manning is in no way responsible. What you’re saying is that if someone exposes criminals and other criminals retaliate, the whistleblower should be held accountable.

    What’s more troubling is that if you fought in Afghanistan as you imply, you may have been in a position to have witnessed war crimes simply by virtue of being in a war situation. Are we to understand that you would turn a blind eye to those crimes, or you would if your superiors did?

  19. JJ says

    @Terry, disclosing classified information is only illegal for those who took an oath to keep it secret. Journalists are free to publish whatever is leaked to them. How do you think it works? The government can simply declare everything it does secret and shield itself from accountability? What law do you think Glenn Greenwald broke?

  20. PeteP says

    While I can respect someone who supports Snowden’s release of information about spying on American citizens, that is not all that he did. He released information about our spying on the Chinese government right before Xi Jinping and Obama met at Sunnylands, severely impacting our ability to pressure the Chinese government to stop hacking into our systems. He basically gave the Chinese cover to dismiss our requests. So now the Chinese can continue to hack into our systems and steal our intellectual property without any ramifications. He has done this over and over again with foreign governments, straining our relationship with other countries. Sorry, but that is clearly acting against the interests of the United States and has nothing to do with spying on Americans. Why would we ever welcome him back to this country?

  21. JJ says

    @PeteP, I don’t see how you can reconcile your position logically. If there’s nothing wrong with the U.S. spying on China, then why should it be wrong for China to spy on the U.S.? If there IS something wrong with the U.S. spying on China, then why would it be wrong for Snowden to expose the wrongdoing? If Snowden reveals U.S. misconduct, and China responds with its own misconduct, why would you hold Snowden accountable for either government’s misconduct? Isn’t each government accountable for its own misconduct?

    You say you support Snowden exposing information about spying on Americans. So it’s wrong for the U.S. to spy on Americans but okay to spy on the Chinese? Is there a double standard at work here–that it’s wrong for any government spy on Americans, but it’s okay for the U.S. to spy on non-Americans?

  22. Dan Cobb says

    Wow, probably as the senior member of this chat log, it is dis-spiriting to see so many people who are opposed to what Greenwald and Snowden have done. Unforunately CONTEXT is the problem… both Snowden and Greenwald are American heroes and they fit the classic mold of American heroes: they were unafraid to expose the abuses of power, which clearly they did! And amazingly there is a serious national debate about those very issues. Without them, the police state would likely have continued to gain prominence –and my fellow gay brothers! You do NOT want a police state… gays have never fared well under a police state!
    I wonder if all the commentators who are opposed to Greenwald and Snowden would have supported the British during the American Revolution, after all, what Geo. Washington and Thomas Jefferson did at the time was AGAINST THE LAW!! Crimminy! How sad it is that so many of the commentators are willing to abide abusive laws just because “a law is a law” and must be obeyed. Do young people today have no notion of justice? Fairness? Decency? From my perspective few do. So many young people seem to have a passive acceptance regarding all things done by their government… VERY SCARY.

  23. Dan Cobb says

    Personally, I don’t care if the release of the information put someone in danger… that is NOT on Snowden or Greenwald… that responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the US agencies and bureaus that seem to think conducting despicable operations against others is a great way to get along in the world.