Should President Obama pardon or otherwise free Edward Snowden from the legal burden hanging over him?
Looks like someone has already voted from this IP. If you would like to vote please login and try again.
Should President Obama pardon or otherwise free Edward Snowden from the legal burden hanging over him?
0
Percentage of others that also voted for:
Four reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
1) He clearly and obviously was motivated by desire to enforce what he considered to be the Constition of the US. He may (or may not) have been wrong, but there was no attempt to gain money or intentionally undermining of our country (he could have simply sent the files to Russia or China without publicizing them)
2) He had previously attempted to go through channels and this failed to do anything. But once it went public, real changes were made as a direct result of his actions.
3) There are multiple bad consequences for him remaining outside the US - it's a stain on our reputation and question him and find out any thing more about what happened and what he did.
4) The current situation ENCOURAGES more people to follow in his footsteps, particularly those that desire money or fame. He escaped to Russia, became a celebrity and they made a movie out of his life. That's the ultimate "win" for anyone considering copying him. By pardoning him (and yes, the President is legally allowed to pardon someone before they have been convicted of a crime - we did it before, after the Civil War), we are actually discouraging copy-cats by taking him out of the public eye, reducing his fame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Four reasons (Score:5, Informative)
No, that is not accurate. He did not "blab" to anyone.
He collected a lot of data of criminal activity, far too much for him to do more than scan it. He then turned it over to the most reputable and responsible journalists he could find, and he had the sincere belief that they would exercise good judgment in deciding what parts of it were properly newsworthy and what parts were irrelevant or should be protected.
The really sad part of the Snowden story is that there are almost no American journalists who can or should be trusted with such crucial information. The victims of these crimes that Snowden was most concerned about were Americans.
Just like Snowden and me, and probably you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...PRC college network ...
Pearl River Community college is the first thing google comes up with. I'm not convinced that the NSA has any business intruding their network.
Nice Try NSA (Score:5, Funny)
Putting together another enemies list?
Re:Nice Try NSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it's the first time for any of us to make the NSA's list.
Boy, that's really paranoid.
Apropos of nothing - I assume it's normal to have a well-dressed guy hanging out in your living room? Other than occasionally talking into his earpiece and sometimes cleaning his gun, we hardly even notice he's there most of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Putting together another enemies list?
That's why I voted Cowboy Neal!
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I voted Cowboy Neal!
Incredibly brave of you -- that's a hanging offense 'round these parts!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give you the "funny insight" mod if I ever saw a mod point...
(Okay, a third category of features I would probably want to help fund would be improvements to and simplifications of the broken moderation system.)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I care what the NSA thinks of me? I have no money or power, they don't care about me, and never will.... but I'm in the database just in case... ;-)
Never gonna happen (Score:3)
I mean, yeah, he should, but it's never gonna happen. Obama's been going hardcore after whistleblowers and there's nothing indicating he would change his mind now.
No way either Hillary or Trump pardon him either, as they're too involved/sympathetic of state surveillance. Maybe Bernie, Johnson or the crazy green lady would, given the chance, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Usual disappointment and repeated suggestion (Score:2)
Not sure why this topic seems to have flopped, but I was anticipating more funny and insightful posts. Only one of each so far? Really?
Surrender, Dorothy. There is no basis for optimism.
I'll stand on my suggestion from last week. Suggested poll:
How would you describe your job?
(1) Quadrant 1: Good work, good compensation.
(2) Q 2: Good work, poor pay.
(3) Q3: Bad work, good pay.
(4) Q4: Bad work, bad pay (including the extreme of no work, no pay).
(5) Pre-work (student?) or post-work (retired? wealthy?)
(6) Cowbo
too busy (Score:3)
Of course Obama should pardon national hero Snowden. And award him the Medal of Freedom while he's at it.
But he won't. Because he will be too busy pardoning banksters and party hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he will be too busy pardoning banksters and party hacks.
Pardoning them for crimes they've never been charged with in the first place? That would be egregious.
Chelsea Manning also needs a pardon (Score:3)
Public Interest Defence (Score:2)
Trial in Absentia (Score:2)
I will start by saying that I don't support a trial in absentia of Edward Snowden. But I would like that a president also pardon someone who is found guilty. Edward Snowden is as far as I am aware innocent of any crime in the USA per the US constitution. He is a suspect, he may have even publicly admitted guilt or involvement in something that might be a crime. However he has not been brought to trial in person or not in person and been found guilty of a crime. The president doesn't have to pardon Mr. Snowd
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Snowden should be pardoned. However, you're wrong about the legal process. You can issue a pardon for a crime to an individual that has yet to be convicted That individual can accept or decline the pardon. In the event that the person accepts the pardon, it is considered a simultaneous admission of guilt of the crime being pardoned and a pardoning for the same crime.
This is the logic Ford used to pardon Nixon (before he ever was impeached). That by accepting the pardon, which meant a
I'm confused (Score:2)
What did Snowden release that wasn't already well known, and that fell in the scope of "things people on /. think should be released"? I'm curious because I know he talked about metadata collection (well known) and foreign intelligence (should not have been released) but I don't know of any third silo.
Re: (Score:2)
Because every government does it. Germany spies on the US as much as the US spies on Germany (probably mo
Re: (Score:2)
See, we disagree on whether we should be wiretapping foreign leaders, et al. But they weren't news when Snowden released them. It's like leaking the nuclear launch codes and then saying "what, you like nuclear war?"
It didn't add new information, it pushed your agenda.
Although spying on a country violates that country's laws, it's irrelevant. It's not violating US laws. And that's why the US government set up the NSA in the first place.
I don't even see what's immoral about a nationstate using its power t
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, letters of marquee and centuries of precedent disagree with you .
Re: (Score:2)
Factually wrong. An agent with a letter of marque would be committing an act of war, not a crime. This protects the individual as a prisoner of war. This may very well have worse consequences (hence disavowing agents as a trope).
Re: (Score:2)
The letters of marque clearly contradict it. They are not criminals. They are soldiers.
The fact that de jure it was illegal to wiretap is pretty meaningless, because unenforced laws may as well not exist.
Lastly, usually the people doing so are embassy staff, but then we get into PNG and diplomatic immunity.
sheeple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only sheeple will vote no. They do not see the military-indystrial-financial complex as it is. They do not see the 'country' as it is. The country is run b y the complex. Not by /true/ patriots. And I am looking in from the outside so I /can/ know.
First rule of sheeple: If you're convinced that everyone else is blind and you're the only person who really understands what's going on, you're a sheeple yourself. From a different flock, perhaps, but with similar delusions.
Due process matters more than Snowden (Score:3)
Sorry to party poop, but you don't get to break the law and escape punishment. Snowden committed a crime. If due process is circumvented, law becomes arbitrary and meaningless.
The right response: invite Snowden to return to the US and serve a light sentence (e.g. 5 years) in a low security federal prison.
Meanwhile, change the law to create an external authority that arbitrates whistleblower complaints across all branches of US gov't. Unless a fair court (unlike FISA) with independent authority exists to redress whistleblower complaints, the US government is even *more* likely to spin out of control and destroy its credibility than if Obama circumvents due process by pardoning Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
He has to serve trial before a sentencing would be delivered, but you are dead on suggesting that they set everything to a light sentence or even better offered him a light sentence as a plea deal. There's actually a lot of opportunity in that I think and also a lot of possible PR for whatever government would offer him such a deal.
I will call you out on one thing though:
> you don't get to break the law and escape punishment
1. It is entirely possible to believe someone has broken the law but at the same
Irrelevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I voted no. I've worked in a classified setting both before and after Snowden released info, but not nearly to the degree he was.
First, he claims he was upset about the mass surveillance, he could have pulled/released documents just on that program. He released a bunch of unrelated material (claiming or expecting wikilinks would be pick what was important)
Second, He complained that he reported stuff but nothing happened. I took a shit-ton of mandatory training every year, at least a couple of them give info
Re: (Score:2)
Or is this just another bullshit attack to deflect from the idea that Obama is one of the biggest criminals in US history?
Why Obama is a criminal (Score:3)
And many of the people murdered are not even the intended target.
Obama ran on promising openness, yet he's ramped up the witch hunt on whistleblowers like crazy:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [washingtonsblog.com]
Apparently he's paranoid about them revealing his crimes.
Good thing the establishment media is eager to lie for him.
That way the people don't know, and the law doesn't matter to higher officials anyway, as we've seen with Hil
Re: (Score:3)
Third, if he truly believed what he was doing was right, then stick around and face the consequences. Hell, plead guilty and convince a jury you should get off. Or at least pull a Assange and hole up in an embassy. I really think he went where he did because he thought they would shower him with money for more info and he could live out his days in luxury. He took all the extra data as a safety net.
This presupposes faith in the American government as a good actor, which is exactly the myth he was trying to dispel. We wouldn't expect a Russian intelligence leaker to stay in Russia and face the consequences even if he/she believed they were right.
Fourth, and finally, I have friends who were deployed, who (at least they firmly believe) were put in harms way and lost men directly because of the info Snowden released. These guys are more courageous and less selfish than any of the political scum running and people like them are the reason we can worry about phone call metadata collection instead of being shot if we disagree with the government. If there are facts backing up what they say, then I think Snowden should be charged with negligent homicide for every related count.
I would say that the real blame for soldiers killed in a war started based on lies should be placed on the leaders who started that war, not the person who exposed some of those lies (even if doing so may have also lead to some deaths). People are very good a
Re: (Score:3)
He complained that he reported stuff but nothing happened... It doesn't sound like he exhausted all of his options to legally raise attention.
He may have felt, (and possibly rightly so), that further attempts to "legally raise attention" would have marked him for some undesirable and dangerous 'special attention' of his own, while at the same time utterly failing to right the wrongs he was witnessing.
Somewhere along the way, he agreed to not disclose info and follow the process and precautions laid out.
That sounds rather like a contract. If the agency he worked for failed to materially disclose that he might be witness to the ongoing and institutionalized breaking of laws and/or the violation of the Constitution, then it strikes me that said contra
Re:No? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have some facts that may change your opinion...
He released a bunch of unrelated material (claiming or expecting wikilinks would be pick what was important)
He didn't release any information to Wikileaks. He didn't dump the material into the public domain where anybody could get at it. He gave the information to a few reputable news organizations for them to release the information.
Third, if he truly believed what he was doing was right, then stick around and face the consequences. Hell, plead guilty and convince a jury you should get off. Or at least pull a Assange and hole up in an embassy. I really think he went where he did because he thought they would shower him with money for more info and he could live out his days in luxury.
He is being charged under the Espionage Act. He will not get the chance to defend himself in front of a jury or judge. That is the consequence of his actions so why would he stick around for that? Second, he didn't go to Russia by choice. He was on his way to South America when the US government cancelled his passport. It's the US government's fault that he is where he is. Snowden didn't go to Russia to get showered with money.
Fourth, and finally, I have friends who were deployed, who (at least they firmly believe) were put in harms way and lost men directly because of the info Snowden released.
Before releasing information the news organizations have been checking with the government to ensure that no released information will put people directly in harms way. So far nobody has shown that anybody has been physically harmed by the information released.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"My country, right or wrong," is, I think, the attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
To the 19% of /.ers who think Snowden is a traitor who leaked secret information, tell me how giving information to newspapers makes him a traitor? Snowden gave the information to no one else. The newspapers, including the Washington Post, released some of the information that Snowden gave them. Then the Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their leaking of the information. The 19% either don't know what they are talking about, or they are just acting dumb and trying to confuse others. Snowden was not trying to ge
Re:No? (Score:4, Insightful)
>> Because he is and was an idiot only interested in his personal fame.
Not true. His whole motivation is to shine a light on the evil in the system. I'm sorry that you're so braiwashed that you confuse patriotism with defending a fucked up/corrupt/evil system.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."
John Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams
Re: No? (Score:2, Insightful)
Good intent (for the sake of argument) does not mean legal, moral, or right.
Re: No? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to James Comey and Hiliary Clinton.
Re: No? (Score:4, Informative)
One of the laws she violated was 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f). A law, not a rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No? (Score:4, Insightful)
And you would rather she prosecuted for it, and Trump elected? Isn't that just the least bit shortsighted if not mindbogglingly stupid?
In answer to your questions, 1.) yes, and 2.) no. She committed a serious crime. It shouldn't matter what she's running for. And I'd say the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Trump facing federal charges for passing classified information through an insecure and unauthorized email server in order to hide political favors for private donations. We deserve better than a political class that is above the laws they impose upon us.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f). is relevant - The articles laid forth in that were sanctioned by her position with in the cabinet position she held at the time.
The marking of classified material is the responsibly of the sender
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the markings, classified material requires certain handling. Saying it wasn't marked when every reasonable person would realize it should be classified does not relieve the handler of the responsibility of protecting that information.
Re: No? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f). is relevant - The articles laid forth in that were sanctioned by her position with in the cabinet position she held at the time.
The marking of classified material is the responsibly of the sender
I agree. And she also SENT classified information, she didn't only receive it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't handle the truth!
Re: (Score:2)
No, Administration is QUITE consistent: "Protect our friends, punish our enemies". Plus, Comey didn't want to have a gun accident where he is found with three shots to the back of the head. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal does not mean immoral or wrong either.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it does weigh towards them. If the intent was good and the effects were good, then it's fairly easy to argue that the action was moral and right even if it was illegal. If that is the case, a pardon would be justified. (The question becomes then if the effects were good - I've read decent arguments both ways, though the 'it was worth it' articles seem a bit more detailed and thought out.)
Re: (Score:2)
3-strikes laws, zero-tolerance, drug sentencing, rape sentencing, apparently...
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dumblaws.com/ [dumblaws.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Doing what you believe is right is exactly what I would consider moral thing to do is. Ok you may be misguided and different people have different opinions on what is the right thing to do. In the end an individual can only do what they believe is the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant :)
Who was very rarely stable..."
Also, something I seem to recall about the road to hell being paved with...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what fang bangers are.
People who have sex with vampires.
Re: (Score:2)
The US and pretty much every government does it, the government also hacks private individuals information on mass so if its not wrong for them why is it wrong for Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he flee with sensitive information and flee to China and Russia of all places? I don't trust him.
If you are about to release information showing how corrupt an intelligence agency is, are you really going to trust them to treat you fairly?
Re:No? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
Re:No? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't you know Patrick Henry was a terrorist. If he was alive today he'd definitely be on the no fly list.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know Patrick Henry was a terrorist. If he was alive today he'd definitely be on the no fly list.
To those in power, a revolutionary, no matter how righteous, is a terrorist.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you know Patrick Henry was a terrorist. If he was alive today he'd definitely be on the no fly list.
To those in power, a revolutionary, no matter how righteous, is a terrorist.
Yet the US government backs the so-called rebels in Syria and those rebels are affiliated with ISIS/ISIL. In the ongoing conflict in Syria, the United States of America is on the wrong side of righteousness although they are most definitely self-righteous.
Of course. There is no morality on the world stage; only power and control. Your point shows that the world is much more complicated than the neat little package presented on TV, and quite a bit messier.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know Patrick Henry was a terrorist. If he was alive today he'd definitely be on the no fly list.
Exactly how many Londoners died from Patrick Henry's (or George Washington's for that matter) legions of suicide bombers? Sometimes "freedom fighters" are terrorists, sometimes they're fighting to take the place of the current nobility, sometimes they're fighting for freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know how many but I know many loyalists in the colonies got tarred and feathered and otherwise assaulted for opposing the revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you're a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" depends entirely on what side is handing out the labels. I'm pretty sure George Washington and his cronies were considered terrorists by ol' George across the pond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No? (Score:4, Interesting)
All the founding fathers were traitors to their government at the time. "Hang together or all hang separately" - to paraphrase Ben Franklin. They would have certainly been hung if the revolution had gone the other way.
Also, let's not forget Chelsea Manning when it's time to hand out pardons.
Re: (Score:2)
And he wouldn't get to if he was alive today either.
Re: No? (Score:2, Interesting)
And how did it end for Henry? Snowden should return to stand trial in the US and go down in history just like Henry.
Re:No? (Score:4)
If you can't see the context and the wisdom they you are a buffoon. Perhaps thats why you hurl your crap while hiding behind posting as AC rather than having the fortitude to stand behind your own words.
Sincere ignorance or devout stupidity? (Score:2)
Whenever I see such trollage as your AC posted, I resent the waste of my time. That's hearsay, by the way. I didn't waste the time to look at the OP, but I trusted your descriptive summary, mostly on the basis of your first reply, which seemed substantive and reputable.
(If slashdot were ever to add a funding model that drove new features, then I think the new feature projects that I would be most likely to support would be in two categories: Enhanced search and reduced visibility of trolls.)
Oh yeah, on the
Re: (Score:2)
Once Snowden was on the list of possible leakers, they were probably ready and waiting to feed him exactly what they wanted to leak.
It makes me borderline cringe how ludicrious that sounds. You don't really believe that do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence or analysis to support your opinion?
All I have is 10 or 15 fairly directly related books on the history of espionage, but it would be hard to pick out all the examples directly relevant to the kind of internal paranoia such agencies suffer from. Oh wait. Maybe I should cite some of the relevant psychology books?
Right now I think you have nothing but ignorance, possibly compounded by verbal diarrhea. If you have nothing to say, then perhaps you should say nothing? In that case you co
Re: (Score:3)
A free account on a random website full of degenerates trying to convince themselves they have power or significance outside of the internet? Not interested.
Oh, the AC is intimidated. Cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, you are as anonymous as any AC. Post your full name, employer, and contact information if you want to prove your "fortitude".
Until then, your dick waving isn't anything more than dick waving.
Why employer, so you can go crying if he says something you don't like?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No? (Score:4, Informative)
His activities did more to help US citizens than an single figure in the last two decades.
It's critically important for citizens to know when their government is violating the contract that makes them a nation.
Because of his actions several unConstitutional programs were suspended or scaled back. And the government had to acknowledge they lied you the governed. It also has to acknowledge it lied to other countries.
The reason he is in another country is because, when you have evidence your government is breaking the law, it is illogical to assume you can get a fair hearing under the law.
Snowden never intended to stay in Russia, he was going to Equador when our government revoked his passport. The reason he had to go through countries that aren't exactly friendly with US is because he had to go through countries that wouldn't extradite him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not just that the Supreme Court has not had a relevant court to make a ruling on whether the programs were constitutional; the Obama Administration uses the rules of the courts to make sure that the issue never gets before the Supreme Court for a ruling. They will do things like strategically drop charges, select venues with courts more likely to determine that the other party does not have standing so it does not happen, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No? (Score:2)
Agreed. I don't think ge did it for personal glory though. Snowden strikes me as a very naive little boy. He was probably galked into it by the journalists who he first contacted, and they are certainly in it for the scoop
Re: (Score:3)
...immediately endangered thousands of lives around the world. Because his actions resulted in the executions of several key figures working for peace.
Which lives were endangered and who was executed?
Re: (Score:3)
Because Snowden is a Traitor who ran to China and Russia directly with classified information which immediately endangered thousands of lives around the world.
He was actually stranded in Russia when the State Dept revoked his passport. He did not intend to stay there.
Because his actions resulted in the executions of several key figures working for peace.
Is there a citation for that? What does "working for peace" mean?
He did all of it truly for a short time grand-standing with Wikileaks and a minimally faster revelation of information than possible with normal FOIA procedures that respect security guidelines to preserve the lives of those serving the US around the world.
You really think secret NSA spying programs are subject to FOIA requests? FOIA requests have to specify what they are looking for. Before Snowden's revelations, the government wouldn't even admit the programs existed. You can't request information on programs you don't even know exist or aren't acknowledged. Can I submit a FOIA re
Re: (Score:2)
Uber has allies? Is there a Lyftwaffe?
+5 All teh funnies
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is has done a lot of harm to the United States. He is and his supporters - you included - are giving support to enemies of the United States.
Do you start all sentences with "he is" or just those two.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what your stance on Snowden is, but he was not an enslaved person running from his oppressive captors.
Re: (Score:3)
Remind me again, what crime was Nixon convicted of?