Many of the most important stories in the history of modern journalism have come from sources who have taken information without authorization.

To permit surveillance to take root on the Internet would mean subjecting virtually all forms of human interaction, planning, and even thought itself to comprehensive state examination.

He's the President—it's the responsibility of every citizen to criticize aggressively when they think it's warranted.

It's hard to imagine a more potent sign of a weak, declining empire than having one's national 'credibility' depend upon periodically bombing other countries.

When journalists are 'accused' of being 'advocates', that means: challenging and deviating from DC orthodoxies.

I know it's a really hard concept to process, but the fact that Govt accuses someone of being a Terrorist doesn't mean they are.

The way things are supposed to work is that we're supposed to know virtually everything about what they [the government] do: that's why they're called public servants. They're supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that's why we're called private individuals.