Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: What Does Edward Snowden Deserve?

Posted by samzenpus on from the naughty-or-nice dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made government whistleblower Edward Snowden a very peculiar offer last week: plead guilty, and the U.S. government would consider how to handle his criminal case. That seems an inverted way of doing things—in the United States, the discussions (if not the trial) usually come before the guilty plea—but Holder's statement hints yet again at the conundrum facing the government when it comes to Snowden, a former subcontractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) who leaked secrets about that group's intelligence operations to a number of newspapers, most notably The Guardian. It's unlikely that the U.S. government would ever consider giving full clemency to Snowden, but now it seems that various officials are willing to offer something other than locking him in a deep, dark cell and throwing away the key. If Snowden ever risked coming back to the United States (or if he was forced to return, thanks to the Russians kicking him out and no other country willing to give him asylum), and you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

11 of 822 comments (clear)

  1. It might be an unpopular opinion... by The123king · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but a pardon for his crimes, a pack of beers and a a badge that says "I stated the obvious"

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    1. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they're offering deals then I think they're worried about what else he knows.

      Maybe he's saving the good stuff 'til last.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      See, I have mixed feelings about this. For the revelation about the domestic spying I would classify him as a whistleblower and say full pardon, but then he went and divulged a bunch of information on foreign spying programs which makes me feel like he should be classed as a criminal.

      Spying on allies is a thin excuse for outrage on the part of the average US citizen. Everyone does this, we know it, but you're not supposed to get caught. However by divulging this external spying (which I fully expect the NSA to do) I feel he's actually crossed the line from whistleblower to criminal.

      Like I said, mixed feelings. In the end, I don't think a full pardon is warranted, but I think most of the major charges, especially all charges related to revealing the wiretapping scheme, should be dismissed.

      Also, a pardon is not really applicable here, as he has not been convicted of any crimes. He is technically still innocent under the eyes of the law, though I'm sure the government doesn't care.

    3. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He deserves a ticker tape parade and to be listed among the great patriots who sacrificed personal safety and comfort in the name of liberty.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by cfulton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry but you are wrong. At least in the sense that because a person is guilty he must be sentenced to the prescribed penalty. People rarely say it, but a large part of trying someone before a jury of their peers is that they can be found innocent even though the actually perpetrated the crime. The south used to find this a nifty way to get away with lynching. But, it also happens all the time for good reasons. It may get you ire up to hear it but it is true. If Snowden were tried and I was on the jury I would vote for acquittal.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    5. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thoreau speaks to this point:
      "[8] All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75.(10) If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.(11)

      [9] Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God that the established government be obeyed, and no longer" — "This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other."(12) Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it.(13) This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people. "

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  2. At the very least... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    Shoot, he deserves it 100x more than the FEMA directory to whom W. awarded it in response to Hurricane Katrina.

  3. Let us not forget... by jmd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The other whistleblowers. Manning, Assange, Jeremy Hammond..etc etc.

    Whether or not you like their methods these people are effectively doing the same thing. Uncovering and making known actions of the US (and other gov'ts) that are in direct conflict with humanity and the exisiting legal framework.

  4. Maybe you're asking the wrong question by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's always the same: "What does Edward Snowden deserve?". How about "what should we do about NSA's over reach?". Lost in this discussion seems to be any kind of seriousness about reigning in NSA. At least in the 70s when the CIA was caught engineering coups they had to have congressional oversight placed upon them.

  5. Full pardon, and here is why. by emil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pardoning Snowden for all past crimes and enabling his return would prevent the release of any further damaging documents. If Snowden remains within US jurisdiction, any new leaks of his material can lead prosecutors directly to him.

    Once the bleeding has stopped, the NSA and the Justice Department should together explain to the voting population the legal concept of "the fruit of the poison tree" - any intelligence gained by espionage should be inadmissible in court outside of direct, existential threats.

    All governments engage in espionage to some extent, and our goal should not be to remove our "poison garden" and blind ourselves, but to ensure that state secrets are not used as a weapon against the populace.

  6. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's a group of congressmen out for James Clapper's blood. He lied to congress. Under oath. That's perjury. They're all republican too. Which means I'm a little disappointed in the democrats.