by u.s. spies. "the administration official offered an example of one concern. terrorists may be less inclined to communicate via clean e-mail accounts that have no links to them because they believe the u.s. government can track those." this article not only self-servingly advanced the narrative that the intelligence community would like us to believe the edward snowden leaks have helped the terrorists, but in doing so it could be seen as doing far more to concretely alert terror groups to what the u.s. intelligence community knows about them and their communications than anything published by "the guardian" or the "washington post." and, yet, somehow i have not heard members of congress calling barbara starr's reporting dangerous. or pushing for her prosecution the way some did when glenn greenwald reported the edward snowden leaks. >> greenwald says he's got it all and now is an expert on the program. he doesn't have a clue how this thing works. neither did the person who released just enough information to literally be dangerous. >> i'm talking about greenwald. you have someone who blows secrets like this and threatens