You can't have a pristine house with ten dogs, and I'd rather have the ten dogs.

I think that - not just as a journalist but as a human being - I have the ethical responsibility to avoid actions that can harm innocent people.

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

The War on Terror has been and continues to be, above all, a war on the most basic liberties and political safeguards that we're all taught are what distinguishes the US and keeps it free.

It's common to go from 'crashing the gate' to guarding it.

Beyond all the other reasons not to do it, free speech assaults always backfire: they transform bigots into martyrs.

No matter the specific techniques involved, historically mass surveillance has had several constant attributes. Initially, it is always the country’s dissidents and marginalized who bear the brunt of the surveillance, leading those who support the government or are merely apathetic to mistakenly believe they are immune. And history shows that the mere existence of a mass surveillance apparatus, regardless of how it is used, is in itself sufficient to stifle dissent. A citizenry that is aware of always being watched quickly becomes a compliant and fearful one.