On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>> the article referenced only has 114 pdf pages, so what's p. 388?
> The first page of the article was originally on page 341 of the journal.
> So for 388 you want PDF-page-49.
> You might actually want to start reading on the previous page, though.
Yes indeed. And I'm sorry to report after reading the entire section 10 (pdf-page 48 bottom through pdf-page 55 top; journal pages 387-394) that this article doesn't support Greenwald's assertion at all, to wit:
> Among the documents leaked by Ellsberg were some of the *nation's most
> sensitive cryptography and eavesdropping methods*
Even the government didn't claim this. What the government did claim was that these papers would reveal to foreign governments that we had cracked their codes or tapped into their communications, which would make it harder to do so in the future -- not at all the same thing.
But worst of all, this is *a government prosecutor* claim. And the whole point of this section of the article is to discredit it, which it very persuasively does. By the last paragraph, it's devastated this claim. There is no reason to think it was true.
Trying to carve out that one footnote to make it look the opposite borders on equivocation.
I loved the rest of Greenwald's article. I thought his stirring rhetoric was brilliant. But I'm afraid this will make extra wary in the future when he cites surprising factual claims.