You can read that right here:
Claims about Snowden vs evidenceAn article by the Sunday Times has been circulating all over American and British media. It mentions "senior government sources" claiming that China and Russia have "deciphered documents" leaked by Edward Snowden and consequently MI6 has been forced to rescue "agents out of live operations in hostile countries." Senior government officials claim that "China cracked [Snowden's] encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified." Senior government officials claim Edward Snowden "has blood on his hands."
So, we see a lot of claims made by unnamed "senior government officials." But where's the evidence?
Anecdotal claims made by named or unnamed sources are a long-standing part of journalism. But they must have evidence to back them up. An anonymous tip can prompt an investigation, but the word of an anonymous so
Now, the writer of said article - Tom Harper - has gone on CNN to defend his article. At least... that's probably what he intended.
"We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment."
In this interview, Tom Harper admits to precisely what I accused him of in my response. In this interview, Tom Harper admits almost every flaw critics of his article alleged.
Also, this is a clear example of how not to make a convincing argument. Tom Harper answers nearly every question with "I don't know," or "I can't comment."
Let me ask you, the reader, a question:
Who do you feel makes a more convincing argument?