After Deciding that Benghazi was just a Street Riot, the New York Times Turns Its Attention to Edward Snowden

Fresh off their article defending the indefensible Obama version of the Benghazi attack, the New York Times and Guardian newspapers have called for clemency for Edward Snowden, saying that the federal contract security worker-turned-traitor should be praised rather than punished for his disclosures about NSA spying through its metadata collection system. The newspapers - both played a role in publishing Snowden's stolen intelligence information - suggested this week that the former National Security Agency contractor's revelations about the United States' world-spanning metadata program were of such public importance that they outweighed any possible wrongdoing. "Considering the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight," the Times said, calling either for a plea bargain, some form of clemency, or a "substantially reduced punishment." The Guardian said it hoped "calm heads within the present [US] administration are working on a strategy to allow Mr. Snowden to return to the US with dignity, and the president to use his executive powers to treat him humanely and in a manner that would be a shining example about the value of whistleblowers and of free speech itself." But the paper also said it was hard to imagine that President Obama would give the leaker "the pardon he deserves." Both newspapers published their editorials online within a few hours of each other, but Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said the papers' appeals were not coordinated ahead of time. "Complete coincidence," he said. He credited the legal reverses suffered by the NSA's domestic dragnet, the spying reforms suggested by Obama's privacy review team and Silicon Valley companies' recent summit at the White House with bringing things to a head. "We both had the same thought - that, after the rather extraordinary events just before Christmas ... it (would) be (good) to say something at year end," he said. Snowden is currently residing in Russia following a scratched attempt to travel to Latin America, where he'd been offered asylum. He faces espionage charges in connection with his leaks, which US officials have described as damaging or even life-threatening, but talk of amnesty has been circulating for several weeks after the idea was first floated by senior NSA official Rick Leggett. Asked about the proposal in his year-end press conference on December 20, Obama didn't actually say 'no' and one former member of the intelligence community suggested the idea may have wings. Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former chief of Britain's MI5, recently told the BBC she expected "some kind of deal" for Snowden, but she was careful to note that she was simply speculating. Jeffrey Toobin, the former federal prosecutor who is CNN's legal expert, said that the newspaper position articles have zero chance in moving the Justice Department off its position. And, in fact, the DoJ said yesterday that the charges against Snowden are very serious and that a plea bargain or a pardon would send the wrong signal to other would-be secret information leakers. A presidential pardon was not mentioned. Toobin has consistently said that the value of the debate precipitated by Snowden's disclosures are completely separate from the fact that he has admitted stealing top secret information. Toobin says the prosecution for that theft should proceed. The Guardian and the Times have relied on Snowden as a source for stories on the NSA. The Guardian has done so directly, through its journalist Glenn Greenwald, and The New York Times indirectly, thanks to a deal with the Guardian made back in July. ~~~~~ Dear readers, it is not an edifying spectacle when newspapers that have come close to aiding a traitor then plead for mercy for him. A newspaper should make its decisions about using sensational material illegally in the possession of a thief based on its ability to verify the accuracy of the material and to thereby provide the public with important information not otherwise available. Perhaps the Guardian and the Times considered and were satisfied that they met these threshhold conditions in choosing to print Snowden materials. But that would in no way make either newspaper the defender either of Snowden or of their own decisions and actions. That is for the public and the Justice Department to decide. And in the case of the New York Times, which just last week decided to become the defender of the Obama version of the Benghazi affair, this new position vis-à-vis Snowden is troubling. One might well ask if the Times has become the public information outlet of choice for the White House. Is this the beginning of a new niche for the NYT...understanding - how we cannot be sure, but we might guess by at least some discussions with policy leaders inside the Obama White House - and then supporting in print the Obama version of reality. For, make no mistake, keeping the Snowden affair out of a very public courtroom trial would be extremely convenient for the Guardian and the New York Times, and immeasurably more convenient for President Obama and his security team.