Posted on 04/16/2014 1:04:43 PM PDT by Randall_S
On Monday, April 14, 2014, the Pulitzer Prize, the most prestigious award in American journalism, was awarded to the Washington Post and (UK’s) The Guardian for their coverage related to the revelations of spy, Edward Snowden. Apparently, for those on the Pulitzer committee, it’s still ethical to betray your country and carry water for the Russian military and intelligence.
Still ethical? Yes.
At a press conference held at the Women’s National Republican Club prior to the announcement, Accuracy in Media, a journalistic watchdog based in Washington, D.C., recounted the circumstances around another Pulitzer Prize, to Walter Duranty. Speaking at the event was Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid, and Walter Zaryckji, Executive Director of the Center for US-Ukrainian Relations.
Walter Duranty was a New York Times correspondent in Eastern Europe in the 1930s. While there, he intentionally obscured and apologized for Stalin’s forced famine of Ukraine. This was proved beyond a reasonable doubt through the Kliefoth memorandum, which recorded Duranty’s admission to a U.S. State Department official that he strictly reported the official Soviet explanation of the Ukrainian famine . It is estimated that approximately 7 million Ukrainians perished from 1932-33, because Stalin decided to decimate the Ukrainian population and resettle the land with ethnic Russians.
(Excerpt) Read more at nyyrc.com ...
WaPo and The Guardian are spies? Who knew?
Young Republicans — bah.
I think the question to ask yourself is: If you knew what he knew, would you have run off to Russia? Most normal people would not have.
“I think the question to ask yourself is: If you knew what he knew, would you have run off to Russia? Most normal people would not have.”
Well, before we elected BO, I would have agreed with you, but now I am not at all sure that I would. Maybe we should go ask Cliven Bundy for his take on the situation.
Putin is a thug, but as a world leader, he’s got FUBO covered by a mile!
I hear you. But dealing with our own government, in my mind, does not translate into license to hand over our most sensitive intelligence procedures to a foe who wishes to completely destroy the United States.
Personally, if I had come into knowledge like Snowden did (and I’m pretty sure he was flipped well before he started collecting secrets), I’d figure out a way to leak them domestically, slowly, over a long period of time, so that the info would get out, but the country would stay safe.
Whether he ran or not isn’t really the issue.
I might have run. I might have stayed. I might have chickened out and not told the American people. I probably would not have told foreign countries what America was doing, for I would view that as treason.
“...But dealing with our own government, in my mind, does not translate into license to hand over our most sensitive intelligence procedures to a foe who wishes to completely destroy the United States.”
It is only your supposition that Snowden has given anything to the Russians. You may be right, on the other hand maybe not. “Leaking internally over time” is like boiling a frog. The government would be able to figure out a way to counter the releases. for me the jury is still out on Snowden, but I believe he’s trying to right a serious wrong.
I was of a mixed mind initially but when I realized that it was all playing out like a Graham Greene novel it dawned on me exactly what had occurred.
Agreed. Now it’s very obvious. He was taking the secrets for a primary purpose - espionage. The entire privacy PR campaign is a convenient distraction.
Though, for the record, I see absolutely no reason why the NSA has an interest in 99.99% of Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.