Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What Does Edward Snowden Deserve?

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?"

529 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 RailGunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      More popular then you think. Mr. Snowden is a whistleblower who pointed out that the NSA was breaking the law.

      Full pardon.

    2. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      I'd throw in an executive order by the president dissolving the NSA, but requiring Snowden's co-signature.

    3. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I support this. In addition he should get the next Peace price, as his doing weakened the US and made it less able to force things at the present. Maybe it will help that the US administration learns to talk and negotiate on equal terms which will make the world a safer place. Also there are other states, like the UK, Russia or China, who need to be humbled as well.

    4. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually he wasn't pardoned. His sentence was commuted but he was never pardoned. He's still guilty.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Full Pardon, and Presidential Medal of Freedom.

      Anything less is a travesty.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. 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...
    7. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He didn't just state the obvious, people have been stating the obvious for years, Snowden provided evidence.

    8. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by GameMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Honestly, I voted for Obama (and would vote for him again simply because of how much crazier the GOP is) but I think Snowden should get Obama's Peace Prize.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    9. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oliver North got a light sentence and than the ACLU helped clear him of even that.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mrclisdue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's anecdotal, I admit, but I believe you're in the minority with that particular opinion, though I'm sure there are a few folks 'round the oval office and thereabouts who share your thoughts.

      The irony may be that the USA is well on its way to disallowing either of us to express our opinions or thoughts, anywhere.

      cheers,

    13. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      + financial compensation for his loss.

    14. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And what difference did it make when it was found out that they did? They still went right on doing it.

    15. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to raise the question, however, of whether what people deserve should play into decisions of justice. Our concern shouldn't be for exacting Karma, but preventing harm, through a combination of deterrence and treatment, to the greatest measurable effect.

      To that end, a pardon is still called for, just not because he deserves it, just to prevent chilling effect on whistle-blowers.

    16. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Eric Holder is still trying to find a means of punishing a guy who was already found not guilty by a jury of his peers (Zimmerman,) I don't think he'd offer anything better to Snowden.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    17. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by CppDeveloper · · Score: 2

      Whether the NSA was breaking the law or not is immaterial. I think that the more important questions is SHOULD they be doing what they are doing?

      I think its an important distinction because if they were breaking the law then there are other avenues Snowden could have pursued that probably would not have required breaking his NDA. However since many at LEAST believed it was legal and appropriate that is what required Snowden to go public - and I think makes him more hero than traitor.

    18. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It all depends if you consider him a whistleblower or not. Whistleblowers are protected.

    19. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Arker · · Score: 2

      If this was in any way about crimes, he would have been offered immunity to testify at all those trials that are resulting from his disclosures.

      Oh, wait, you say no one else has even been charged?

      Hmmm.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    20. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by organgtool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and a a badge that says "I stated the obvious"

      He didn't just state the obvious like many people before him did - he had the balls to gather evidence that the most powerful nation on the planet was spying on its own citizens, spying on allies, spying on international corporations, and outright abusing its power in dozens of previously unknown manners. The evidence is what separated him from every other person that attempted to blow the whistle on these activities before and the process of methodically gathering that evidence over a long period of time took balls of titanium. If he was smart, he would never attempt to step foot in the U.S. again because he made a ton of powerful people look really bad and I'm sure they can't wait to greet him.

    21. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      He released more then just the phone metadata stuff, he did release stuff that has not yet been deemed illegal too. Also we need to show if their was an official/legal channels he could have blown the whistle, then the way he did it?

      Was this really the last resort? or just the most cinematic way he could think of doing this, so he looks like the little guy doing big things, against the evil government.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      Sure you can, if you gloss over the legal issue of whether you can even know whether someone "undoubtedly did" commit a crime until as a minimum you have followed due process and tried their case before a competent court.

      For one thing, the US government is demonstrably willing and able to grant retrospective immunity to parties who have probably broken the law if it wishes to do so. There are well-documented examples related to the same kind of surveillance issues Snowden raised, they were just applied to parties on the other side of the debate.

      For another thing, if you're talking about issues on a scale of how government works, alleged abuse of power, and failure to apply your nation's constitutional provisions, appealing to "they broke the law" makes only a limited amount of sense. When only one side has any say in making the law or how that law is enforced in practice, it's hardly going to lead to a rational, reasoned debate and ultimately to constructive change. One man's terrorist/freedom fighter is another man's freedom fighter/terrorist, history is written by the victors, and all that.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    23. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by amorsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      True, he should be prosecuted, but his sentence should be no penalty. He committed a crime to stop a much larger crime. Surely no justice system in a democratic country penalises people for doing so.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    24. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.

      I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      So would you also be against a Nazi concentration camp guard abandoning his post and telling the rest of the world what was going on there? I'm sure that would have been against some German law.

    25. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

      How about a full pardon and the medal of freedom

    26. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by amorsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you expect the NSA to spy on Siemens so that American companies could beat their sealed offers? Is that really a valid use of government power?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    27. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hey, look, I found an article about you on the internet.

      http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

    28. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by SerpentMage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quick question what about the General who lied through his teeth when questioned by Congress and the Senate? Remember he LIED... Snowden did not lie, he just uncovered what was the truth.

      Many think that Snowden is the culprit here, but frankly he is not because if it was not Snowden it would have been somebody else. The problem is the NSA was too zealous in its gathering techniques. It was only a matter of time before somebody would have said something.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    29. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not a 'criminal', simply a 'traitor' - a traitor can have good motives (good enough for him), but we-all used to shoot a lot of 'em.

      Question for the "Snowden is a traitor" camp:

      Upon what evidence do you make the claim that Edward Snowden either gave and and comfort to enemies of the American People, or declared war on the same?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    30. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one likes that murderers murder people, but it is a fact of life.

      There, see how useless and idiotic that is? People can see that this sort of thing is happening, so you don't need to reiterate it. Something being common or accepted does not make it right. People are saying that this is wrong and shouldn't happen. I for one thank Snowden for releasing the information you seem to consider useless, so hopefully we can eventually stop the NSA from spying on allies and innocent people worldwide.

    31. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by khelms · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe torture is against international laws that we have agreed to follow, but I haven't seen anyone charged with crimes for black prisons, extraordinary renditions, and torture.

    32. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bite:
      What snowden did was a form of civil disobedience. What about the civil rights activists who committed "crimes" aka peaceful protests and other non violent forms of civil disobedience in order to repeal or change said laws? I think the majority agreed with their stated motives.

    33. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      + financial compensation for his loss.

      how about a ticker tape parade while we are at it.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    34. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by Mabhatter · · Score: 2, Informative

      But you cannot be pardoned until THE LAW has its way.

      This entire case is about THE LAW. The NSA broke laws. Snowden broke laws back to tell the public about them.

      At this point, you don't ask him to "apologize" and take some licks. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH screwed up... THEY don't get to fix it.

      The proper course of action is to arrest him and for the DoJ to press what they got. Then the COURTS will look at EVIDENCE and decide if he qualifies for Whistleblower status. And the COURTS will decide what charges stick. And the COURTS will tell the Executive to pound sand.

      Then the EVIDENCE will be legally on the books. Then a solid precedent will be set for reporting these types of crimes. THAT'S how FREEDOM works.

      After ALL THAT, we can talk about pardons. Right now Snowden is not "wanted" for any listed CRIMES. So he cannot be "pardoned" for anything!

    35. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NEWFLASH: The NSA's actual job extends beyond a sound bite. There's more to it than just 'spy on the rest of the world.'

      As for being 'a fact of life', i would contend that this is only true because certain groups in most countries make the claim that it is. If the NSA were suddenly vaporized along with anyone who would work for the US government and has basic knowledge of spycraft, the general US pubilc would probably not be subject to substantial negative effects. Some executives who benefit from the industrial espionage that they engage in might be hurt, but these parties are pretty good at not paying taxes or creating jobs.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    36. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Honestly, I voted for Obama (and would vote for him again simply because of how much crazier the GOP is) but I think Snowden should get Obama's Peace Prize.

      You do realize there are more then two parties right?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    37. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by phayes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have to have been condemned to be pardoned. For example, Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon.

      Snowden may qualify for a partial pardon for whistleblowing on NSA domestic activities, but not for all the other info he released, IMO.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    38. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Copid · · Score: 1

      Why not vote for a good choice instead of the least of two bad choices? It's your kind of attitude that allows us to sink to this kind of a state in the first place.

      That assumes that there was a "good" choice among the alternative parties. That's a pretty big leap.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    39. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can say the fleeing to foreign countries part is from the chilling effects. If you're going to jail for leaking anything, you might as well use less judgement, leak everything, and get away.

    40. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Snowden has repeatedly stated that he gave everything he has to the journalists and he no longer has the material.
      The journalists (Greenwald, Guardian, etc.) are in control of the material and they decide what to release and when.
      So... I don't think he has any leverage to release or not release any information.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    41. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Haha.

      No there isn't.

    42. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by jythie · · Score: 2

      Congress has a pretty poor, or at least erratic, track record of actually enforcing the 'under oath' part of testifying in front of congress. Unless you are really small or really unpopular, even getting caught in outright lies is unlikely to have any consequences.

    43. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by khelms · · Score: 2

      You do realize there are more then two parties right?

      I thought the two parties had the system rigged so it is extremely difficult for anyone from a third-party to get elected.

    44. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Only if a new statutory holiday is created in his name, because we all need an additional 3-day weekend.

    45. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't leak a care, would you?

    46. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In theory this would be accurate. In practice, the government REALLY doesn't like to be made a fool of. No realistic person would actually believe Snowden would get a fair and impartial day in court.

    47. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Snowden committed crimes

      Fine then lets put him in line for prosecution....right after Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Yoo, and every member of the CIA that had any knowledge of or involvement in torture.

      After that, prosecute everyone in the NSA involved with every one of their programs that breaks the law.

      Then, and only then, should Snowden be considered for prosecution.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    48. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Consider civil disobedience.
      Thoreau, Gandhi, ML King, etc. all broke the law.
      However, most people think what they did was "right" and that they should not be punished.
      Snowden did us all a great favor by proving what many has suspected... the government is routinely violating the first and fourth amendments to our constitution (among other serious crimes).
      This essay on Civil Disobedience by Thoreau may provide some enlightenment:
      http://thoreau.eserver.org/civ...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    49. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize there are more then two parties right?

      I thought the two parties had the system rigged so it is extremely difficult for anyone from a third-party to get elected.

      and that sort of thinking reinforces it

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    50. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I'd like to see all the government officials responsible for this whole NSA spying fiasco to be found hanging from the trees around the national mall; that would be Justice Served.

      They are the real Traitors in this; they took the oath, then gave illegal and unconstitutional orders.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    51. 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.
    52. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by VTBlue · · Score: 1

      Actually there is no such thing as preemptive pardons. Yes even presidential authority must be defined in law. What Ford did was neither legal nor illegal. If you read how pardoning powers work, a person must be charged with a crime before being pardoned from it. To this date, Nixon has never been charged with any crime. What Ford did was short-circuit the legal process.

    53. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Tell that to Dick Cheney. To G.W. Bush who ordered the CIA to withold all information about the false WMD claims until after he got his war authority. To Ronnie Raygun you know why. To Bush the Smarter for the war crime of invading Panama. When they are hanged, then we talk about punishing Snowden for telling the TRUTH!

    54. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      That's not really a big deal. His celebrity and age combine to give him tremendous earning power if the US were to welcome him back with open arms.

      Obviously yes, any of his assets that have been seized he should get back, but a couple of hundred thousand dollars in lost income would be nothing compared to the book deal he could get and the speaking fees he would get and all of that sort of thing. He could probably make all of his lost income back in a month of speaking fees if he was free to travel anywhere.

    55. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.

      Yep totally... prosecute Snowden...after...

      Clapper is prosecuted for lying to congress.

      Top people in the previous administration are punished (If I were prosecutor I would push for death penalty) for lying to the world about reasons for starting an elective war with Iraq that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands and counting.

      And every lawyer and TLA official who knowingly subverts the constitution every time they pull a new stellar wind out of their assholes. Collecting is not collecting unless we looked at what we collected.... And top officials actually did go in front of congress spewing such utter nonsense thinking they were being clever.

      The "rule of law" only holds meaning in the context of legitimacy of the state which has been severely strained not by any action of Snowden but by series of ongoing illegal actions of the state.

    56. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not a 'criminal', simply a 'traitor' - a traitor can have good motives (good enough for him), but we-all used to shoot a lot of 'em.

      Traitor has a very specific meaning under the law.

      While he did release a lot of documents that made people uncomfortable, and some of those documents did harm to the nation by revealing the truth, that isn't the meaning of 'traitor'.

      He would have needed to knowingly and willingly provide 'aid and comfort' to known enemies of the country, or declare war on the country (which is very difficult for an individual to do)

      Short of direct evidence of his doing something like knowingly harboring Al Queda operatives as they plan an attack against the nation, a 'traitor' charge is not appropriate.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    57. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Because I don't like to throw away my vote. I play the game based on how the rules are now, not how I think they should. I agree in the need for a strong multi-party system (more than just two) but our present system of laws is rigged to ensure that such a system simply isn't viable. If you believe that needs to change, I believe the only useful effort would be to work to get those laws changed. I reject the fallacy that both parties are "the same" or "just as bad as each other", they're not. While I'm waiting for the system to get fixed, I'm going to vote within this broken system in order to try an minimize the damage it causes.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    58. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      As it turns out, the NSA actually broke very few laws, and had congressional approval for what they did.
      we may not like it, but that's not the same as breaking the law.
      It turns out that they had congressional approval, and they were good stewards of the data.

      Don't like what they did? then you should be engaged you elected officials to change it.

      Just becasue he is a whistle blower, doesn't mean he gets a free pass.

      10 years in the cube, perp.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    59. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by qpqp · · Score: 1

      That's what he stated, but I'm sure he knows the keys to those shared encrypted files...

    60. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      c)

      * Realize that while both parties are bad, they are NOT equally bad and do not have the same effect on society while in power.
      * Realize that thinking that the system has to be up to my minimum standard or, otherwise, I'll just sit around and play my fiddle while Rome burns (throw my vote away on a third party that I know won't win) is childish and simple-minded thinking bred from irrational anger and frustration.
      * Vote within our existing, admittedly broken, system in order to try and minimize the damage in the short-term in the hopes that the system can be fixed over time.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    61. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Not that have a chance of winning control of the US government under our present electoral system.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    62. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by icebike · · Score: 1

      The NSA's job is to protect the US from attack.

      Reading Angel Merkel's email and listening to her phone calls is simply stupid an highly insulting.

      None of this has proven effective.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    63. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then the COURTS will look at EVIDENCE and decide if he qualifies for Whistleblower status.

      Snowden and others have already talked about this at length.
      The law does not allow for him (a contractor) to be a whistleblower.
      If Snowden goes before a court, he'll be prosecuted under the Espionage Act,
      most of the evidence against him will be classified, and he'll be convicted in a fairly open and shut case.

      And the COURTS will tell the Executive to pound sand.

      That's a wonderful scenario, but extremely unlikely.
      The courts will follow the law, which leaves no room for Snowden to be found innocent.

      Right now Snowden is not "wanted" for any listed CRIMES.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
      06/21/2013

      Snowden was charged with theft, "unauthorized communication of national defense information" and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

      Your post needs less CAPS and more facts.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    64. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by asylumx · · Score: 1

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

      If that's the case, then there is an obvious argument to be made that he is NOT working in the public's interest. If he were, he should have shared "the good stuff" first.

    65. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      No, it really is broken.

      Is it possible that a third party could come to national prominence in a given election cycle? Sure, its happened before in the past. That's why we don't have parties like the Whigs and the Bull Moose Party. However, that won't accomplish a stable multi-party system in this country. All that will accomplish is (as has happened in the past) that one of the existing entrenched parties will go away and we'll be back to a two party system with the same actors and issues (most likely by the next election cycle).

      Until we can get some of the fundamentals of the system changed (at the very least, at the state election law level) this will always be the case. Such change will, by it's nature, have to happen WITHIN the present, broken, two party system. I'm not claiming it'll be easy, I'm just claiming it's the reality of the situation as I see it. Until then, I'll keep voting for whichever party I think will do the least damage to the people of this country. For as long as I've been alive, as bad as they are, that has happened to be the Democrats.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    66. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2

      What utter bullshit. Your naive dismissal of how the entire world operates is useless and idiotic.

      Your appeals to popularity are useless, naive, and idiotic; congratulations.

      I'm not defending the NSA, but it is their job to spy on other countries.

      You are defending the NSA. And it should only be their job to spy on enemy countries.

      If the NSA was closed down do you really think all the other countries that spy on the US would stop?

      Straw man. Most people are simply calling for them to stop spying on allies and innocent people, not to scrap the whole idea of an organization spying on enemies entirely.

      Besides, the US is supposed to be exceptional. How is it exceptional to do something because everyone else is doing it? You're a mindless drone and you should feel bad.

      What the NSA is doing to other countries is an unfortunate necessity to ensure the safety of the American people (just like is doing it to ensure the safety of their people).

      You have no proof that spying on allies and innocent people is truly necessary for our safety, but even if that were true, safety is far less important than principles, morals, privacy, and freedom.

    67. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Informative

      The government is breaking the law, and continues to act illegally.
      A civilian breaks the law (oh how convenient) to expose the illegal activities.
      Why is the civilian prosecuted and the original offender let off scott free??
      Why again are we also not trying and sentencing the government officials who broke the law in the first place??

      You seem to be misunderstanding "Civil Disobedience". Here is a refresher course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

    68. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      But you'd rather that we put our head in the sand and pretend that no one spies on anyone?

      By the way, again, that's just another straw man. I do not ask you to pretend that other people don't spy. I ask that you not be an idiot and use "Everyone is doing it!" excuses to try to justify immoral activities. Really. Stop being illogical.

    69. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by runeghost · · Score: 2

      People who focus on Snowden's "crimes" instead of what he revealed are ignorant fools at best and willing apologists for a criminal state at worst.

    70. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Agreed 100% ! Is it only in America that things are fucked up this bad??

      Lie and get away with it.
      Tell the truth and get convicted for it.

      --
      Life, verb, "The journey of self discovery"

    71. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like to agree with you, it doesn't quite work out to be an automatic protection. IIRC, there are a few really big obstacles you have to hurdle, and I believe that you have to work with some US-recognized legal authority while you do it.

      That said, my best hopes for Snowden is to have whoever replaces Obama will simply grant a presidential pardon and be done with it. Not holding my breath, though...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    72. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But you cannot be pardoned until THE LAW has its way.

      Yes you can. See for example, Nixon's criminal trial. Which didn't happen when Ford pardoned him.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    73. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Agreed 100%. Another question for the "Snowden is a traitor" camp:

      Why aren't his superiors ALSO labeled as traitors as well ?? They are sworn to uphold the constitution. What makes them justified that they feel they can break the law?

    74. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So people should not be punished for there action if it is 'good' in some arbitrary big picture?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    75. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      No need to talk about stringing them all from streetlights. I'd be happy seeing America's war criminals rotting in their cells at the Hague while they wait for their turn in front of the ICJ.

    76. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      'good stewards of the data' Then how the fuck did Snowden get away with all the data he took? The problem is that he is probably neither the first, the only or the last leak of data from the NSA. The whole organization is a leaky sieve. That is why they should not have any personal data - who knows which mafioso will your banking details end up with it?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    77. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      + financial compensation for his loss.

      how about a ticker tape parade while we are at it.

      And a front row seat at the trials of Holder, Clapper, and Alexander. He'll probably be testifying anyway.

    78. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Snowden has repeatedly stated that he gave everything he has to the journalists and he no longer has the material."

      Unless I am mistaken, he has also repeatedly stated that he has many more documents he has been holding back "for insurance".

      It is possible I got mixed up, and he turned over that "insurance" in his last batch of revelations, but I thought not.

    79. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the United States government wasn't already well down the road of secret courts, secret trials, and secret evidence that would be a viable option. Bush II and Obama have really proved that old adage about the road to hell. (Assuming they had any good intentions in the first place, that is.)

    80. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And the Continental Congress and the Continental Army all should have been executed as traitors for open revolt against their lawful Sovereign and consorting with enemies of said Sovereign. And yet, oddly, they are celebrated as heroes who struck a great blow for liberty and achieved freedom for their nation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    81. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by runeghost · · Score: 2

      Look at what happened to Thomas Drake if you want an example of what happens to whistleblowers in the 21st century United States.

    82. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Two different executive branch commissions have now released statements saying they found NSA actions to be illegal. Plus the FISA court's statements on the matter. NSA supporters can keep lying if they want, but it's obvious to anyone with a working internet connection that the NSA violated the law.

    83. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "It all depends if you consider him a whistleblower or not. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected."

      There. Fixed that for you.

      While we do have whistleblower laws, the laws the government has been trying to apply pertain to spies, not whistleblowers. Which means we either need to revamp our spying laws (likely), or revamp our whistleblower laws (also likely).

    84. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. No more than six months in prison, tops. And they should agree to waive most of the fine.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    85. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.

      I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      Where are mod points when I need them?

      Snowden should be tried for the crimes he committed. Whistle blowers should be protected up to a point, but they are still responsible for the laws they break. This is not to say that the NSA isn't in need of reform and greater oversight.

      If I broke into my neighbor's house (a crime), and while in there I find child porn, and thus report him to the police, what should happen? Do I get a free pass for my crime because I exposed a more despicable crime? Does my neighbor get charged despite the evidence being obtained illegally?

    86. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by davester666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget, Obama claims that he has the legal authority to detain an American citizen, on American soil, and remove that person from the country, without notifying anyone [no lawyer, judge, relatives, the person is just gone], and hold them indefinitely without charge. He has to have this power to keep the country safe, but he promises not to use it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    87. 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?
    88. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "If that's the case, then there is an obvious argument to be made that he is NOT working in the public's interest. If he were, he should have shared 'the good stuff' first."

      That doesn't necessarily follow. It could be that what is held back are things that are damaging to the government, but not in the public interest to reveal. For example, he could be holding information about spy operations in Beijing that if known would harm U.S. intelligence operations but not benefit Americans in any significant way. (Just a hypothetical example.)

      There is another thing that bothers me about OP's question, though:

      "If ... you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

      The problem with that idea is that I would never be Holder or Obama. I would never voluntarily do the things they have done. Hell, even at gunpoint I probably wouldn't do some of the things they have done.

    89. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you are confused on this point. He has made it clear numerous times that he does not have control of any of the documents. He has also explicitly stated that he is not holding back anything for "insurance" since that would be an invitation to others to kill him to reveal these documents.
      Hard to prove one way or another here so you just have to take his word on this (or not).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    90. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      IF he had gone to any of the various Representatives or Senators, he would have been a whistle blower.

      However, he handed information from the NSA to a foreign reporter...and then ran to Russia. Sorry....loks like someone knew they violated the law even though there was a way to be a whistleblower without violating the law.

    91. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by laird · · Score: 2

      Specifically, the "whistleblower' laws that people keep talking about specifically do not protect anyone revealing illegal government activity if it's in any way related to national security, the military, etc. So if we had a whistleblower revealing corrupt Department of Agriculture activity, perhaps they'd be protected. But Snowden's situation was very carefully NOT protected by the new "stronger" whistleblower laws.

    92. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Maybe he's saving the good stuff 'til election season.

      TFTFY.

      No wonder the politicians are in a panic.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    93. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Realize that thinking that the system has to be up to my minimum standard or, otherwise, I'll just sit around and play my fiddle while Rome burns (throw my vote away on a third party that I know won't win) is childish and simple-minded thinking bred from irrational anger and frustration.

      Continuing to prop up a broken regime is not the right choice; it's better to let Rome burn, so to speak, because then something better can be built from its ashes. I'd rather let the country collapse if that's what it takes, so we can more quickly get to a point where we're rebuilding, because that point will never come as long as the current powers stay in power.

      To make an analogy, it's like trying to keep using a creaky old building with a fractured foundation by continually propping it up with little pieces of wood, rather then just letting it collapse and building a nice new building in that spot.

    94. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      The courts will follow the law, which leaves no room for Snowden to be found innocent.

      Unless, of course, the court finds the law to be unconstitutional, or it reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    95. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Congress has a pretty poor, or at least erratic, track record of actually enforcing the 'under oath' part of testifying in front of congress.

      Congress remodled their prison into conference rooms something like 50 years ago. Not too long after the 17th Amendment was ratified and the majority of the Senate turned over.

      Accountability is _not_ the desired outcome (for the power structure).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    96. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      obviously did the right thing

      No, it is not obvious. Dumping information on foreign collections is not obvious. Even if you give him a free pass on the so-called whistleblowing of domestic operations, he is a traitor for divulging (and continuing to divulge: "I'll tell you how they are spying on your country if you give me asylum") foreign intel. You can't have it both ways. If he was the principled man he says he is, he would have revealed the info he needed to reveal to show what was going on domestically, but he's not. He did a blind grab and dump without any concern of the consequences. He has not only shown the desire to shop around foreign collections information, he is also believed to have made contacts with Chinese and Russian operatives before he fled the country.

      The blind idealism and fanatical devotion shown to him around here is scary; I'm starting to see how people follow cult leaders in spite of all the evidence that would otherwise show them not to be the divine being they claim to be. It is interesting to see, on one hand, the hero-worship shown to him by so many here, and the derision given by these same people to religious cults like Scientology.

      If following the Constitution, and expecting all levels and members of government to follow the Constitution is a "cult" to you

      Guilty as charged.

      By the way, considering that other people who tried to do whistle blowing by other means ended up in jail, dead, or hiding in some other country when they tried "limited" release, taking the whole schebang was the proper and prudent move.

      How about this, asshole, let's have a government that doesn't break the fucking law and violate the constitution in the first place? Then you can stop worrying about people fighting back with a large pile of damaging secrets.

      You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide right?

    97. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Or realize that your vote is not that powerful and wasting it isn't really such big deal in the first place. You wouldn't want to waste your vote because the other party might get in, guess what they will get in maybe not this election, but eventually they will

      So vote for a third party if you wish, it will make little or no difference to the election outcome either way.

      c) is just accepting the status quo, they want you to think that a vote for someone else is a wasted vote, that how they keep their power.

      If there was a third party, the people who run the country would have to start bribing, oops I meant to say making political contributions to them as well, it would be more expensive. Guess what I think they are as bad as each other, and the whole thing is just a show to give the impression that you have a choice.

      Nothing will change, if people just keep on doing exactly what they have been doing in the past.

    98. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mspohr · · Score: 2

      However, you must take into account that some "interests" may want the information revealed. Not all "interests" want to keep the information secret.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    99. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      So, we're fixing to prosecute those in the NSA who undoubtedly did commit crimes? Didn't the head of the NSA perjure himself before Congress?

      See, we don't just have to prosecute everybody, do we?

      I say we prosecute Snowden. I mean, just prosecute the hell out of him. I even have the timing for it: right after we prosecute every criminal in government that he exposed.

      Kind of like "let him without sin cast the first stone", isn't it?

    100. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by DriveDog · · Score: 2

      It's not unlikely that along with all the other stuff he snarfed, he also got some dirt on some US politicians. Not that the Russians wouldn't give him safe haven just to spite the US (or obtain information from him), but they'd certainly do it as part of a deal with the US administration if they stood to gain something. What's more, it seems even more likely he has dirt on Russian politicians, which would certainly explain their willingness to grant him asylum.

    101. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt that when it comes to who the good guys are, humanity looks to America. Weather it's the President, some Chinese Fat Cat, or a Mula that should have switched to DeCaf years ago. The U.S. sets the bar, and the NSA does not meet minimum specification; I know what funny is, and I'm not smiling.

    102. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

      I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      Sure you can, if you gloss over the legal issue of whether you can even know whether someone "undoubtedly did" commit a crime until as a minimum you have followed due process and tried their case before a competent court.

      For one thing, the US government is demonstrably willing and able to grant retrospective immunity to parties who have probably broken the law if it wishes to do so. There are well-documented examples related to the same kind of surveillance issues Snowden raised, they were just applied to parties on the other side of the debate.

      Exactly. The government goes out of its way to grant legal immunity to telecom/info companies for leaking private customer information to the government, because the government decrees that it has an unlimited "Need To Know" clearance on all its citizens actions, but of course when an individual leaks information about what the government is privately and illegally doing, the government decrees that the citizens have zero "Need to Know" on what their government is doing.

      The liability/criminality arrows increasingly flow one way these days. Within 5-10 years any remaining vestiges of privacy will have been neatly sewn up. Just like the cliche that "the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it", well, the government's Big Data agencies view privacy as damage, and legislate around it.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    103. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

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

      Snowden has stated that he doesn't have the documents anymore. So it's not up to him what to save for last. IIRC three journalists have access to the full trove of documents (greenwald, poitras and someone else).

    104. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mutube · · Score: 1

      Snowden committed crimes.

      Allegedly.

      For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.

      For the rule of law, he is innocent until proven guilty.

      I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

      The only person who can know if he 'undoubtedly' did commit a crime are the judge and jury in court. If you let that go the second you think "He don't look right..." or "Well, I saw on the news that..." then you're throwing the whole judicial process on the scrapheap. This even applies if you "saw him do it" a.k.a. "I (think) I saw him do it and I'm (pretty) sure he did" - and even if he confesses.

      It may seem like syntactic sugar but you'll do yourself a lot of good if you start inserting "allegedly" into any statement you make about an individual pre-trial - and subconsciously do so when reading other people's information-free opinionfacts. For the record I think he's guilty as sin of the law, but that the law is probably wrong.

    105. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      He does. That was part of the Patriot Act.

    106. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No, not really. The bill of rights(the first amendments to the constitution) were mostly about the rights they imagined everyone deserved, but not specifically about what people deserved vis-a-vis justice. The vast majority of the document outlines how the government works.

    107. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you don't believe there was criminal intent, you can declare that there was no crime. If you find that the information was wrongly classified, the classification is null and void. Then you find that Snowden did not leak any classified information.

      Or, the president can use his power to pardon anyone for any reason to grant a pardon for anything and everything related to the incident.

      You could even find him guilty (after a fair trial) and sentence him to nothing at all (motive is very much fair game in determining the sentence).

      But if I were him, I don't think I would be so willing to trust any of it. The DOJ lies all the time.

    108. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Pardons are for the guilty. What Snowden deserves is explicit exoneration, the thanks of the American people for exposing billions of felonies committed routinely by the minions of the NSA, and WE all deserve to see every last one of the perps behind bars.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    109. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by organgtool · · Score: 1

      IF he had gone to any of the various Representatives or Senators, he would have been a whistle blower.

      You mean the same Representatives that voted for unconstitutional laws that violated the Fourth Amendment making programs like this possible? Yeah, that would've gotten him real far. The point of "blowing the whistle" is to tell someone who will enact change against an illegal or immoral act. The president, reps, and three-letter agencies all support these laws despite their unconstitutionality. Numerous others have already tried to blow the whistle and have gotten nowhere. The only place left to go was the press.

      However, he handed information from the NSA to a foreign reporter...and then ran to Russia. Sorry....loks like someone knew they violated the law even though there was a way to be a whistleblower without violating the law.

      So you're throwing him to the wolves because he violated a law strictly to prove that the NSA was violating many laws (and the Constitution) on an unimaginable scale. If you feel that strongly about punishing a whistleblower, I can only imagine the horrific things you would want done to the people that coordinated the effort to create these systems in the first place. You do believe they should be punished as well, don't you?

    110. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The civil rights protesters typically went to jail. That was part of their protest - to show how the government was persecuting them. But Snowden didn't stick around to "face the music". He scurried away to relative safety abroad, which just demonstrates that his motivation was probably more about feeding his narcissism and seeking fame (ie, sleeping with supermodels) that in achieving social justice. Imagine what history's judgment of Martin Luther King Jr would have been if, after the March on Selma, King hightailed it out of the country pleading "Hide me! Hide me!" to dubious powers abroad. Instead, King stood his ground and served jail time. Snowden did a useful thing, but he's a self-centered coward. Let him rot in Putinland.

    111. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Arkham · · Score: 1

      I say hang him. And shoot him with a firing squad while he's hanging there. I bet that's not a popular opinion either but I think he's an asshole who screwed over everyone else for his giant ego.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    112. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Arkham · · Score: 1

      Or treason. I think that's also an apt definition of what he did.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    113. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      This is one of the rare instances where prosecuting the perpetrator of a crime would harm the USA in ways that cannot be foretold and quite possibly not be repaired. The bare facts of the matter are that Snowden did violate USA laws, and in doing so he did the citizenry of the USA a tremendous service, that could not have been accomplished in any other way. He is a criminal and a patriot.

      What the Federal government can do at this point is make a deal with Snowden: that he accept ostracism in exchange for a USA guarantee of a comfortable life somewhere else. He would never be able to bring his situation before a USA court, and so never be able to defend his actions. He would never be able to step on USA soil. In return, the USA would pay him adequately to stay away, would make his passport good again, and would guarantee not to go after him through extradition or any kind of "extraordinary rendition" process.

      Often closure is a good thing. In this case, the cost of closure is too great, and the situation should be left alone as it stands now, perpetually unjudged until after we all are dead and then the historians can have at it. Paying Snowden an annual stipend to assure that he doesn't force this mess into the courts would be a small price. The USA already has the awful job of cleaning up the fucked up sewer systems of its information gathering networks; it does not need, and cannot afford, to do a Snowden trial before it has purged its guts of the NSA/FBI managers who have neither honor nor sense of ethics.

      --
      Will
    114. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      The Constitution is written in English. I consider myself to be an armchair expert in English.

      You Constitutional lawyers make me laugh. Please, define words for me, because I can't find a dictionary.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    115. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      That can only happen after the USA has repealed the "The Hague Invasion Act", otherwise you're just shuffling those poor people back-and-forth all the time.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    116. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by sjames · · Score: 1

      By acting against the Constitution, the NSA de-legitimized itself. It is no longer any part of the legitimate (as defined by the Constitution) government of the United States. So, Snowden betrayed a domestic enemy of the people.

      The people giving the NSA a pass on all of this are providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

    117. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Pardons can be given in advance of any trial or even before evidence is presented. Nixon's pardon was done that way.

      As for the rest, given the story thus far, Snowden cannot be reasonably expected to trust that he will get anything like a fair trial.

    118. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Lie, even perjure, and bankrupt thousands of home buyers, and get away with it. Because they're rich and powerful. Like the Queen of Mean said, "only the little people pay taxes" and, evidently, the consequences.

      One thing that strikes me about all these high profile criminal and civil cases in the financial world is the supreme emphasis placed on not admitting any fault or guilt. They pay a fine, but they don't admit guilt. The explanation is, it seems, that admitting guilt would leave them vulnerable to all kinds of investor lawsuits. This deal being offered to Snowden, in which he starts by admitting guilt, doesn't sound like any deal at all. I think he'd be crazy to accept it. And maybe he shouldn't even negotiate, until US enforcers get serious about making a somewhat reasonable inital offer. An offer that includes admitting guilt smells bad, like they're just playing games with him, testing him to see if he's desperate or stupid or having a mental lapse.

      Another thing to think about is how the law treated Aaron Swartz. Threaten him with extreme consequences in order to bully him into making a plea bargain. Prosecutors score a few points for being tough on crime, and Swartz spends a few months in prison, with the option to be held for much, much longer, because, hey, in that scenario he admitted guilt. Instead, Swartz took their extreme threats to heart, and suicided. It was a rotten deal anyway.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    119. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Surely no justice system in a democratic country penalises people for doing so.

      Oh, I don't know about that. There is the example of the high schooler prosecuted for drug distribution after saving a fellow student from a potentially deadly asthma attack. That was a prescription inhaler she used.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    120. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      Even "no penalty" may be too harsh a penalty if you believe he shouldn't receive punishment. If his sentence is "no penalty" then that must mean he's been convicted of the crimes that he is charged with, which happen to all be felonies. Then he'd be a convicted felon, not allowed to vote, find a decent job, etc.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    121. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by microbox · · Score: 1

      Agree.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    122. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by icebike · · Score: 1

      With a pardon, there would be no fine.
      Presidential Pardons can be issued in advance of a conviction. There is plenty of precedence for that.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    123. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Theoretically - yes, practically - no. Voting for a third party instead of the one he dislikes least would just mean the party he dislikes most would gain advantage, especially since in a case where one didn't get a majority, it would go to the House/Senate to decide and they're both the two major parties.

    124. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Plammox · · Score: 1

      Damn good question: Do Americans expect their government to steal information, business opportunities and jobs from allied countries, in other words, poop all over their so-called friends?

    125. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by sl149q · · Score: 1

      One big data dump would be exciting for a while but has less impact overall than dribbling it out bit by bit for several years. Death by a thousand cuts......

    126. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by dynamo · · Score: 1

      They will be, someday. Hopefully while they are still alive.

    127. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      A better example is:

      "My neighbor asked me to come over and help fix his PC. Before he let me in the door he made my promise I wouldn't tell anyone what I saw. When I came in and saw his PC, it will filled with child porn. I called the police but they told me that I can't report it is a crime because it's a secret. So I took out a newspaper ad letting people know that my neighbor is a bad guy and is breaking the law. Since he's really big and has a lot of guns, I was afraid to go home, so I had to move half-way around the world to protect myself from being shot in the middle of the night."

      That would be the appropriate parallel.

      In your better example, I didn't break any law in order to obtain the evidence. Snowden obtained the evidence he released by stealing usernames and passwords.

      This isn't about what the NSA did (that is a separate issue and should be dealt with). This is about how Snowden obtained the evidence, and the manner in which he released said evidence.

    128. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Like Oliver North! ;-)

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    129. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

      I partially agree with you, but for I am unsure if a ne'er-do-well would risk kill somebody in the hope that information that person possessed would then become public. It may help prevent torture, but surely only a fool would believe that he hasn't got access to all the information he stole.

      This discussion, for some reason remind me of the Princess Bride:

      You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!

    130. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      For that matter...

      Which prominent Republicans committed the exact same crime as Snowden (exposing something classified to the press), but weren't charged with espionage under the Espionage Act of 1917?

      Answer: Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage for Plamegate.

      A double standard is a double standard. I want to see some heads roll (and I don't care if you're Democrat of Republican). After a few heads of state go down, I think this inane law will be struck down.

    131. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      "I am unsure if a ne'er-do-well would risk kill somebody in the hope that information that person possessed would then become public."
      Not sure who qualifies as a "ne'er-do-well"... Does a country which might benefit from the release of information detrimental to a rival qualify?
      Princess Bride??... lost me there.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    132. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Because Snowden would look weird in a turkey costume, that's why.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    133. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by fritsd · · Score: 2

      So, the obvious solution is, to make a "Constitutional Reform Party" with only 1 agenda point: to change election law to normal representative voting like all other non-commonwealth democracies, and then call new elections within half a year.
      Oh and take money out of politics. "The best democracy money can buy" indeed...

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    134. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      However he also broke the law in order to point out that the NSA was breaking the law. This is the whole conundrum right there, because no reasonable government can just look the other way and ignore when the law is broken, otherwise the rule of law breaks down. Only a corrupt government would apply the law to some people but not others, or ignore the law if it is embarrassing, etc. Thus no a-priori pardon can come.

    135. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, he would be convicted. Because he clearly and unambiguously broke the law with full foreknowledge. That doesn't mean what he did was wrong though. To ask the government to excuse a law breaker is the same as asking the government to pick favorites when it decides who to prosecute. So let him be judged, and go to jail. That's not a bad thing! How many heroes have we had in the past who have gone to jail for what they have believed in?

    136. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      From the Free Online Dictionary: Traitor: "One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason."

      He certainly didn't betray a country, since the secrets were sent to the US (and ally England, who is not an enemy).
      Cause or trust? I guess you can say he betrayed the NSA by exposing their lawbreaking. But I ask this: how else do you expose corruption when it is against the law to expose corruption (anyone that works in Classified info commits a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917 by exposing them to anyone that is not supposed to know the secret)? You could say "bring it up with your superiors," which he and others did. Clapper lied under oath and the president supports the programs - there is no higher up you could possibly go. Exposing it to the judicial system is still a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917.

      Did he commit treason? Absolutely not under the constitutional definition unless again, the press is the enemy.

      Did he commit theft - absolutely, and if he should have any charges filed against him, it should be theft.

    137. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      I would like to add to that, that from the USA's security risk/reward perspective, it's probably better to have and keep allies, rather than to spy on those allies.

      BTW I said "allies", not "vassals". Noam Chomsky's book is called "Hegemony or Survival", not "Hegemony and Survival".

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    138. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      And what could those Senators have done in response? Increase the NSA budget even more?

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    139. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      What snowden did was a form of civil disobedience. What about the civil rights activists who committed "crimes" aka peaceful protests and other non violent forms of civil disobedience in order to repeal or change said laws?

      Umm, most of them went to jail. That was usually an explicit part of the protest. Take some time and read Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail sometime, for example. He explicitly discusses how a major point of protest an unjust law is to practice civil disobedience, but then be prepared to accept the consequences. The point of non-violent civil disobedience in many cases was to change the laws by showing how their enforcement resulted in injustice -- not to avoid prosecution.

      And take a look at Ghandi -- in many cases, the idea was to protest in a non-violent manner by continuing to do something that you should be able to do, but let the British soldiers beat you -- accept your punishment, so that the British citizens themselves might become outraged at what their "law enforcement" was doing, and thus the laws might be changed.

      Like many people today, I don't think you understand what non-violent action really was about, nor the cost you were expected to bear. Since the time of Ghandi and MLK, many governments have realized that beating the crap out of people who won't fight back (or who just accept being taken to prison) just ends up offending other people and ultimately overturning the laws. Law enforcement nowadays practices intimidation, but it avoids riling up the population too much with overt oppressive actions. Thus, fewer protestors are spurred to do the kinds of things that would result in arrest (or even beatings, etc.)... and thus the public is less outraged.

      I'm not saying that this applies at all to Snowden. His actions were less about breaking unjust laws (after all, most people can probably agree that there are in fact intelligence secrets that should not be broadcast on the news, and it probably would be a bad thing if random people in intelligence just started exposing this information for no reason at all -- so those laws have some purpose). It was more about exposing the unjust practices of others within the government and things that had been inappropriately kept from the public.

      In essence, the Snowden case is nothing like classic "civil disobedience" and peaceful protests. I'm not arguing that he should go to prison -- but if he were practicing actual classic civil disobedience, he should probably have been prepared to. Forcing the government to put you in jail or even beat the crap out of you was often a deliberate part of classic "civil disobedience" and "peaceful protest."

    140. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by asylumx · · Score: 1

      So he's blowing the whistle quietly, but for a really long time? I don't think that's how whistles are meant to work.

    141. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      The premise of this post is factually inaccurate. You can be pardoned prior to being brought to trial. As a famous example, famously, President Ford pardoned Nixon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

      Additionally, you don't have to be pardoned for crimes. As an example, please read the text of the pardon (proclamation 4311).

      Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

      The above is quite clearly a pardon for crimes which he "may have committed" during that time. He could have killed a million people with his bare hands, the pardon would still stand.

    142. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      It appears that if anyone posts negative comments and valid points concerning Snowden you better do it as Anonymous or the slashdot hive mind will mod you into the oblivion - as I fully suspect this post will be.

      The point is right on, Snowden did reveal information on foreign data collection methods and means. What's up with that? If one thinks the US should dismantle all spying operations your bleeding nuts...

    143. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I doubt it, to anyone's knowledge it's not like he's revealed secrets detrimental to national security other than illegal spying going on.

      The guy is a true patriot.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    144. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "So if we had a whistleblower revealing corrupt Department of Agriculture activity, perhaps they'd be protected."

      Probably not. Because then the government could claim a National Security "threat" to our farming infrastructure. Which was part of my point.

      "But Snowden's situation was very carefully NOT protected by the new "stronger" whistleblower laws."

      Which means we need to revamp those laws again. Which was part of my point.

    145. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For whistleblower laws to do any good at all they really need to be enforced with with prohibitive and spectacular zeal, ie, anyone attempting to act against a whistleblower needs to get landed in jail so fast their head spins.

      Of course, we all know it doesn't work like that. Perhaps the whistleblower won't get prosecuted but they are likely to lose their job or at the very least they'll find their social situation at work impossible to deal with. Few actions against the whistleblower will ever be punished.

      Realistically it's go to the press and hope the attention makes retaliation difficult, or shut up and do something else if you don't want to be complicit in whatever illegal acts happening that should be leaked. Snowden's assessment was without a doubt correct and he chose the only possible ethical course of action.

    146. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Hint: "The Constitution" is not a specific law.

      You should then rush to update wikipedia: The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.

    147. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Livius · · Score: 1

      There are *fewer* than two parties.

    148. Re: It might be an unpopular opinion... by Livius · · Score: 1

      At a minimum throw in a few public monuments.

    149. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I find it highly amusing that somebody modded the above comment "flamebait". I wonder who or what I'm supposed to be baiting or flaming. I honestly have no idea.

    150. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Not a 'criminal', simply a 'traitor' - a traitor can have good motives (good enough for him), but we-all used to shoot a lot of 'em.

      Question for the "Snowden is a traitor" camp:

      Upon what evidence do you make the claim that Edward Snowden either gave and and comfort to enemies of the American People, or declared war on the same?

      Hmm... well, he gave aid and discomfort to the friends of the American People, upon the receipt of which, they weren't really friends of the American People anymore.

      That's about as close as I can get to apologetics on that one.

    151. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen anyone charged with crimes for black prisons, extraordinary renditions, and torture.

      Perhaps it was before your time, but we have had people charged with crimes for torture, at least.

      After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

      Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

      Citation

      See, apparently it's only torture if the one pouring the water isn't a red-blooded American.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    152. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      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.

      I've been wondering what the view of the Canadian left would be. I think we can probably agree that he will become known as a great Russian patriot although I didn't realize that Russia was lacking in creature comforts. Well, let's hope he didn't teach the next cell how to avoid detection.

      ...and you were doing so well this week....

    153. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, I can see how the continued barbaric imprisonment of Chelsea Manning has resulted in an outraged public, an increase in transparency, a new era of accountability in the armed forces, and a change in legislation.

      The things you say are all true, but they're also apparently no longer applicable or effective in today's society.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    154. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where the whole neighborhood read your newspaper ad and gave not one single fuck. Well, except for the weirdo computer nerd who's still talking about the pedo neighbor. I mean, fuck, we've got the Super Bowl in less than a week! Ain't nobody got time for pedo neighbor shit.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    155. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The way they rigged the system is by convincing you and people like you that it is extremely difficult for anyone from a third-party to get elected.

      I voted for Jill Stein. It wasn't any harder than voting for Obama or Romney. Why did you throw away your vote?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    156. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It appears that if anyone posts negative comments and valid points concerning Snowden you better do it as Anonymous or the slashdot hive mind will mod you into the oblivion

      Oh yes, the "great unwashed" or whatever the current insult is for those who want a country to be run by the people and not a King.

    157. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      All that will accomplish is (as has happened in the past) that one of the existing entrenched parties will go away and we'll be back to a two party system with the same actors and issues (most likely by the next election cycle).

      Oh, that's it? Totally not worth it, you're right. I mean, Greens vs Libertarians is pretty much the same thing as Democrats vs Republicans, right?

      I hope you don't vote.

      Such change will, by it's nature, have to happen WITHIN the present, broken, two party system.

      Mod parent up. HILARIOUS.

      I support WOLF-PAC's efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics, but if you think that's all that's required to fix the system, I envy you for your naivety.

      Shameless plug: WOLF-PAC needs your help. Not your money (well, I'm sure money wouldn't hurt either), but your actual help calling state-level elected officials. Please find some time between your second and third jobs and lend a hand. Democracy doesn't work without the involvement of the constituency.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    158. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by rk · · Score: 1

      But then what do to about those who would WANT the insurance data released and are willing and able to kill him? That's the other side of that coin. That's what the GP was referring to.

    159. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What's your view on Oliver North then? Was that treason or patriotism that led him to sell those weapons to a terrorist group that had killed over a hundred US marines less than a year before?
      So what's the definition of treason you are trying to shove down out throats? Country before King in the case of Snowden or King before Country in the case of North?

    160. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which declared enemy did he aid, and in what manner?

    161. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Snowden may be no hero material, but it doesn't require one to be a coward to try to avoid unjust punishment. Not everyone is Gandhi or MLK, but that doesn't make people cowards.

    162. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, and despite rationalizations and protests to the contrary, the criminal justice system probably exists primarily to serve the emotional need for fairness. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

    163. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Privacy Day?

    164. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Congress can write laws and approve things, but they cannot circumvent the Constitution of the United States in doing so.

    165. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Actually, after some further thought, I realized you have a point.

      There's a significant number of people that will never feel satisfied until Snowden pays the piper, so to speak. Not just people in the higher echelons of government that likely harbor a personal vendetta against him for making them look like liars, fools, and/or evildoers, but also ordinary folks that see his revelations as an affront to the patriotic values that they hold dear. You know, the people that call him a traitor.

      Even if the impossible were to happen, even if Keith Alexander were to turn himself in to the FBI and confess to having intentionally and knowingly violated the US Constitution, even if every last soul in the US Government were to agree that Snowden did the right thing, there'd be quite a bunch of Americans still out for Snowden's blood. No matter how this turns out, Snowden will have to submit to the will of the government for many people to be satisfied that the outcome of all of this could be called justice.

      So, after thinking about it, I realized that Snowden should man up and offer to turn himself in, just as you suggested. But only after the crimes he has revealed are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The ball would then be in "their" court, and it would be fun watching the government squirm to explain their inaction on that front. It would also shift the attention from "what does Snowden deserve" to "why aren't we prosecuting people for breaking the supreme law of the land", which I think is long overdue. It would also take Snowden from "hero" to "saint" status. People love a good martyr when the cause is just, and there is no cause more just than justice itself.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    166. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Wake up. The rest of the world spies on our industries as well. I'm not even talking about China I'm talking about. Read the Wiki articles on the topic. The French are our allies but are also pretty big industrial spies. It's also old news that the NSA spies for American industry. When Boeing was bidding on a Saudi deal, the other side offered a bribe. The NSA picked up on it and disclosed it to the Saudis.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    167. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Take it up with the journalists. Snowden did his bit months ago.

    168. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "But then what do to about those who would WANT the insurance data released and are willing and able to kill him? That's the other side of that coin. That's what the GP was referring to."

      But who would that be?

      The Russians? In order to show how the U.S. has been spying on them? But wait... maybe those documents actually show how the CIA and FSB have been cooperating to spy on politicians!

      Just hypothetically. But you can pick just about any country and use the same argument.

    169. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      By avoiding trial, Snowden can keep the focus on the documents, not him.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    170. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Quick question what about the General who lied through his teeth when questioned by Congress and the Senate?

      It wasn't what you think.

      Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

      Snowden did not lie, he just uncovered what was the truth.

      You have the basic question wrong. Snowden revealed classified information. It isn't a question of true or false, it is a question of who is legally allowed to see it. He compromised American intelligence operations, and those of allied nations. Snowden broke trust, and people are confused about it.

      The problem is the NSA was too zealous in its gathering techniques.

      Snowden arrogantly undermined democratic principles and acted like a vigilante.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    171. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Manning is in prison, that is hardly barbaric. Manning leaked classified data, not challenge real injustices opposed by society.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    172. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The US doesn't recognize the ICC. One of the reasons is the prospect of political prosecutions of the sort you suggest.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    173. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Was this really the last resort?

      Yes.

      J. Kirk Wiebe is retired from the National Security Agency, where he worked for more than 32 years. He received the NSA's second highest award, the Meritorious Civilian Service Award; the Director of CIA's Meritorious Unit Award; and a Letter of Commendation from the secretary of the Air Force, among other awards. He was an NSA whistleblower on matters of privacy involving massive electronic surveillance.

      The linked article that Weibe wrote answers your question in depressing detail.

    174. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by rk · · Score: 1

      Who would that be? Without access to all the information he had, I couldn't say. But at that level, there are many MANY players who would hypothetically fit the good old-fashioned means, motive, and opportunity test. At this level, paranoia isn't a mental illness, it's a survival trait.

    175. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 4, Informative
      Hi cold fjord! I'm honored to have you respond to me directly. Your reputation precedes you.

      Now, are you suggesting that the "Collateral Murder" video that Manning leaked didn't challenge real injustices opposed by society? I'll remind you:

      The video showed an American helicopter firing on a group of men in Baghdad, one of them a journalist, and two other Reuters employees carrying cameras that the pilots mistook for anti-tank grenade launchers (RPG-7). The helicopter also fired on a van that had stopped to help the injured members of the first group; two children in the van were wounded and their father was killed.

      --Wikipedia

      I'm of the opinion that the actions depicted in this video are generally considered to be real injustices, and are indisputably opposed by society.

      But let's not forget my allegation of barbarism, which you contest. Manning has consistently protested the conditions she is being held in, categorizing them as pre-trial punishment. For roughly one year, Manning was subject to either suicide watch or prevention of injury status. Juan E. Mendez, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, published a report saying the detention conditions had been "cruel, inhuman and degrading." In early April 2011, 295 academics (most of them American legal scholars) signed a letter arguing that the treatment was a violation of the United States Constitution.

      So that's the basis for my claim of barbarism. Do you have anything to back your claim that Manning's imprisonment is "hardly barbaric", beyond the fact that most of these issues were eventually resolved?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    176. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The meanings of "aid" for treason were intended to be things like arms (Like Bush and Reagan sold to our enemies in the Middle East, actual treason), and not "protested the GOP, and thus weakened the USA internationally, 'aiding' al Qaida", which is the level of aid you are talking about. Yes, the enemies like the Germans will have issues with what came out, but for actual shooting enemies, there's nothing I've seen indicated to actually aid them, they already suspected everything revealed.

    177. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A presidential pardon is un-overturnable. Ford got away with a blanket pardon for unkown crimes, pardoning Nixon. So I see no issue with Obama pardoning Snowden for any crimes committed while in the employ of the NSA. Hell, isn't that par for the course for the NSA?

    178. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Endymion · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing, then, that Snowden - nor anybody actually following this saga - is claiming that Snowden is engaging in "civil disobedience".

      Snowden is a whistleblower.

      Furthermore, the espionage act (which he is currently charged under) would NOT allow him to defend himself in court, so these cries that he should have stayed and faced our legal system are only asking for a show trial similar to those found in the Star Chamber.

      So which are you? "badly misinformed" or "NSA shill"?

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
    179. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Endymion · · Score: 1

      no, what Snowden did was to make the crimes of his superiors public, aka "whistleblowing". At no point does "civil disobedience" enter into this.

      The only chaning of laws that have even been mentioned by him is to respect the constitution. Do you really want to claim that respecting the constitution - the highest law of the land - is civil disobedience?

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
    180. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Zordak · · Score: 1

      That's a neat tautology you've constructed. "It was illegal for Snowden to reveal PRISM, because the people running PRISM deemed it illegal to reveal PRISM.

      And Wyden's stunt doesn't affect the ethical question. Assuming the article is true and Wyden was fully briefed on PRISM before the hearing, that just makes him complicit with General Clapper in conspiring to violate the Constitution.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    181. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The man risked everything, including his life. I think he deserves a bit more than that. He deserves an award from congress, and either a modest reward, or a small lifetime stipend. By "modest reward", I have in mind something equivalent to the annual bonuses tossed around by bankster CEO's - maybe five million dollars.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    182. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The things you say are all true, but they're also apparently no longer applicable or effective in today's society.

      It's not that they're "no longer applicable or effective" today. It's that the cases are completely different, as I tried to explain. "Peaceful protest movements" are exactly that -- movements, i.e., involving lots of people.

      If a lone person takes some sort of action against the government, it's easy to brand that person a traitor or a dissident or whatever. If hundreds or thousands of people take action and are arrested or detained or even beaten or whatever, the public starts to say, "Hey, maybe this isn't just one crazy person -- maybe there's something serious going on over here."

      I said this in my original post, but apparently I have to repeat it -- I was NOT arguing that Snowden should just have handed himself over to be prosecuted, NOR was I necessarily arguing that he should go to prison. I was simply responding to the GP, who tried to claim some sort of equivalence with past protest movements and civil disobedience. The actions were completely different, and the intended goals were completely different. I think it's a poor analogy, for the reasons I explained... and you've continued to demonstrate how poor the analogy is by assuming that non-violent protest methods wouldn't be effective today. They would be -- if they were done in large numbers and actually disrupted unjust laws. But the best "protesters" can usually do these days is camp out in a park.

      Regardless, all of this is completely irrelevant to the Snowden case -- I just thought it was important to realize that when past protesters broke the law, part of their goal was often to "get caught" by the unjust law. Clearly, that was not one of Snowden's goals, nor should it have been -- which is just another one of many reasons why the GP's comparison to protest movements and traditional "civil disobedience" is flawed.

    183. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing, then, that Snowden - nor anybody actually following this saga - is claiming that Snowden is engaging in "civil disobedience".

      Umm, the GP made that claim. I was responding to a comment that had been modded as "+5 insightful" by pointing out the GP's comparison to classic "civil disobedience" movements was flawed.

      Personally, I think it's important on Slashdot to respond to people who say things get modded up as "insightful" but that don't quite make sense. You, on the other hand, seem to like attacking people who are trying to correct such misconceptions. And you seem to lack the reading comprehension skills to understand that I was actually trying to correct the very misconception you seem to accuse me of.

      So which are you? "badly misinformed" or "NSA shill"?

      I'm a guy on Slashdot trying to improve the discussion by pointing out historical evidence that contradicts an improper analogy that was modded insightful.

      So which are you? "Small intention span" or "lacking completely in reading comprehension skills"?

    184. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Just to be absolutely clear, once again, please re-read my post. You seem to think I was arguing that because protesters in the Civil Rights Movement or Ghandi's followers went to jail that Snowden should too.

      That's not what I was saying AT ALL. I was saying that comparing Snowden to a person who was part of a traditional civil obedience movement is a stupid analogy. One of the many reasons that analogy is flawed is because the GP seemed to assume (with his rhetorical question) that these people didn't go to jail or something... when in fact they did. I was trying to prove the analogy was flawed. I was not making any claims WHATSOEVER about the Snowden case.

    185. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      .....he is also believed to have made contacts with Chinese and Russian operatives before he fled the country.

      Believed by whom? Anonymous Crackpots on the Internet? Sure. They're completely trustworthy.
      The only people who say Snowden was working with the Russians are the various lawbreaking members of the US government, who are actively running a smear campaign against Snowden. The FBI, however, has maintained for some time that Snowden acted alone.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25806855
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/26/usa-security-snowden-idUSL2N0L00BR20140126

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    186. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by arctus · · Score: 1

      There's also the slight difference in that civil rights protesters are recognized and rewarded by the government one day a year (MLK Day)....

      The current government will never recognize or reward anyone for a Snowden-esqe whistleblowing.

      The most will get out of this is a remember, remember the 5th of November kinda day.

    187. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I meant civil [disobedience] obviously...

    188. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      ("Small attention span...") Yes, I see the irony...

    189. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      oh ho ho! boy, I sometimes wonder if Snowden didn't do MORE harm by chilling whistleblowers than anything the Feds could have.

      Look, he exposed a massive, extensive, illegal, and abused surveillance program that is only getting larger and more dangerous by the day.

      Wouldn't that likely have a chilling effect on how many whistle-blowers are now willing to come forward if they know that all their conversations, locations, and contacts are archived by the government? Hell, why do you think Snowden left the country? He knows what we should: Any whistleblowers from here on out are going to be hunted down and disappeared because they cannot hide or be safe-guarded from our government by the law or, barring that, simple anonymity.

      --
      -
    190. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, a presidential pardon would be an end to his legal troubles. But keep in mind, a number of people in our government have called for him to be killed in an extralegal manner. I doubt a presidential pardon will fix that problem.

      Usually when someone is convinced that the CIA or NSA wants to assassinate them, it's a paranoid delusion. In Snowden's case it might jut mean he's a realist.

    191. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Zordak · · Score: 1

      You keep arguing that Snowden clearly broke the law. Yeah, I agree. But that says nothing about whether what he did was right. Not everything lawful action is good, and not every unlawful action is evil. A government illegally or unethically spying on its citizens is certain to deem its actions legal by its own fiat. That doesn't make the spying right.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    192. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

      I would go further and say not only is Snowden not a traitor, he exposed treason. What he deserves is for the treason comitted by secret services to be stopped and to be persecuted.

      No, they didn't, and for precisely the same reasons Snowden's actions were not treason.

      As I stated in the post you are replying to (and many others have stated as well) treason is a very specific crime with a very specific legal meaning.

      If you were to rank the severity of crimes in our nation, the very specific crime of 'treason' is perhaps the most severe on the list, beyond things like espionage, rape, murder, and mass murder. Less than 30 Americans have been convicted of treason in this country, the latest in 1953.

      Even though the NSA spied on many people both inside and outside the law, that does not meet the bar of treason. Even though various agencies have 'disappeared' people, tortured people, terrorized people, and murdered people, those are separate crimes and still are not up to the very specific legal standard of treason.

      Consider that the definition of treason partially includes providing aid and comfort to our enemies, people who readily admit to directly helping Al Queada and similar organizations, declaring that despite being born in the country and being willing to fight to the death to bring it down, even these people are not convicted of treason.

      While the spy agencies certainly defile both the spirit and the letter of the law and Constitution, destroy the nation's credibility, and reek of corruption even at the highest levels of government, those terrible and disgusting actions do not rise to the level of treason. The crimes they could be accused of are certainly diverse and sundry, but do not reach the very high level of treason, which is perhaps the most heinous of all crimes in our legal system.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    193. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Snowden fulfilled his oath to protect and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies. If doing that is against the law we're even more fucked than any of us have realized.

      So yeah, he broke no laws by releasing that data. The people he blew the whistle on are the lawbreakers, they're the ones who belong in Leavenworth.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    194. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You have the basic question wrong. Snowden revealed classified information. It isn't a question of true or false, it is a question of who is legally allowed to see it. He compromised American intelligence operations, and those of allied nations. Snowden broke trust, and people are confused about it.

      .

      Snowden alerted the American people to illegal actions that circumvent the Constitution. I don't care how classified it was. The Constitution and our civil rights are far, far more important than what some bureaucrat thinks we ought to know.

      Snowden arrogantly undermined democratic principles and acted like a vigilante.

      You're fucking high. You should be tarred and feathered along with the assholes who have been shredding our Constitution, you fucking bootlicker.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    195. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      The 4th Amendment says the government can't search our private effects without a warrant. The NSA has been doing just that. If some asshole in a robe says that's legal that says more about just how broken our government is than whether it really is legal or not.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    196. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      No pardon, that would mean what he did was wrong.
      If you are a whistle blower that can show that laws were broken, it should not matter how you got the information ('stealing'), the extend of the information ('to much' or even 'not enough'), nor how you made it public ('aiding the enemy'), you did the right thing and thus you should not be the one the law goes after.
      It is like someone stealing from a drug boss to expose them. THEY were the one's initially breaking the law. And by logic, their wrong makes your wrong, right!
      Anything else would basically give those trying to hide their crimes more ways to cover them up.

      And then call it the 'Snowden-Law' (and watch the trolls choke on it).

      And it should not be the people, but the government and their employees that have to live by the rule 'if you have done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide'.

    197. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Pardon? You only pardon people who DID crimes. But this wasn't a crime, but whistleblowing ON CRIMES.

      So the thing you do is put Snowden in witness protection and start persecuting the upper echelons of the NSA for treason against the people of the United States.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    198. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Kirth · · Score: 1

      "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. "

      Yep, this actually could fit to what the NSA did.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    199. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by DeathToThePatriarchy · · Score: 1

      Thank you. This is such a cogent description of non-violent civil action (was trained by Quakers in the '70s). The other thing that is essential for non-violent action to succeed is a free press. A really free press, that will cover the beatings and arrests. We really haven't had that in quite some time. The press is commercialized. Dissent is herded into "free speech zones" or waits for a Manning or a Snowden to come around. Some news outlets are reporting the release of information about Professor Davidon and the others who broke into the Media, PA FBI offices in the 70s and exposed the illegal actions of the FBI. They leaked the information and their identities were protected. They were only able to remain at large because there was a statute of limitations on the break-in and no-one was ever charged with treason. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but also the willingness to speak truth to power. Without a press that will report on that truth, one is often speaking into a void. And, especially in these days of panic, it takes a great deal of courage for anyone in the press to report on stolen truth.

    200. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

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

      My view is that the only reason for Snowdon to return to the USA would be health problems of his parents. He is comfortable where he is, and over time, will fall in love and marry an educated woman. Putin will not make efforts to force Snowdon to leave Russia, as Putin will be preoccupied with internal affairs pertaining to cost overruns for SEW CHEE (grin)

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    201. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Jury nullification is the ultimate, unreviewable, unbreakable last defense of the citizens to protect their own against the power of the state.

      It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.
      - John Adams

      If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.
      - Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

      Jury nullification is our last defense against tyranny. When the legislative branch creates unjust laws, the judicial branch allows them to stand, and the executive branch enforces them, it is the juror's moral duty to refuse to convict.
      - Unknown

    202. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by messymerry · · Score: 1

      Medal of Freedom, FTFY,,, ;-D

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
    203. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Nope. Look at what happened in the 1970's - for the efforts taken to try to end the NSA only resulted in it being more powerful than imagined. Ultimately, the NSA will recover in ways that Snowden will not be able to stop.

      Face it, he will face justice and would gladly help make that happen as a responsible citizen should. If he is so sure of his case, then he will have no problems doing so himself. Unfortunately, he knows of his guilt and knows of how much evidence is there against him.

      Putting the US(and other partnering First World nations) in unnecessary danger just for a political manuever will only make the US that more resolved to be stronger when a more military-friendly president gets elected. Russia, China, and their allies should be put in check before anything is ever asked of the US.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    204. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      How is prosecution for violation of the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (incorporating both the Hague Conventions on Warfare of 1907 and the Geneva Accords of 1932 by reference) when U.S. Authorities refuse to enforce United States Law a political prosecution? They would just be doing what America swore to do when it signed and ratified the U.N. Charter!!

    205. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There was no breach of US law. You must want to punish them for pursuing a policy you disagree with, that's all. That is a fine example of the very reason the US doesn't recognize the ICC.

      You are also confused about the history. It was Saddam that lied. He had the Iraqi government act as if it still did have WMD to deceive the Iranians.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    206. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I gave you the citation for the law in question, the War Crimes Act of 1996, including the Hague conventions by reference. BTW, Saddam told the truth. Blix reported this. Scott Ritter reported this. The CIA reported it ONLY to Bush, said Tenet before the Senate investigating committee. You lose.

    207. Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... by flatrock · · Score: 1

      He deserves a pardon for all the data he released that could reasonably be determined to detail illegal or unconstitutional government programs or actions.

      But he leaked a massive amount of documents, and most of them don't show illegal or unconstitutional activity. They do compromise legitimate intelligence operations.

      Snowden had a legal obligation to make a reasonable effort to filter out things that didn't show the government breaking the law or the constitution. He also had a moral obligation to do so since he swore an oath the keep classified data secret when he was granted his security clearance.

      This is something that should have been very clear to him after Manning's leak and prosecution. Public and legal pressure may cause the government to pardon or refuse to prosecute cases where the leaked information is overwhelmingly in the public interest, and in both cases it can be argued that some of the leaked information was the valid act of a whistle-blower, but that only justifies the leaking of that particular data.

      Snowden tried to make it sound like he couldn't be protected by whistle-blower legislation because he was a contractor. That's misdirection at best. No whistle-blower legislation is going to excuse the breadth of his leaks.

  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.

    1. Re:At the very least... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I agree - he has leaked stuff, but almost everything he did leak was only damaging to the NSA in the form of showing that they have gone way too far.

      And none of the leaks were really surprising.

      He has made a point, and being in exile isn't easy either. The US government is in a really bad position already, and is fighting an uphill battle with the rest of the world due to a sluggish economy.

      What the US needs is to get straightened out and cut down on unnecessary surveillance and instead invest that money into some real research for the future.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:At the very least... by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. Oprah even won it. It should be one of her "favorite things". I bet if you were on her show on the right day, everyone in the audience would get one too....

  3. What kind of idiot by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would agree to terms before they even tell you what the terms are?

    And lets be fair, it isn't like the Obama Admin could be trusted to live up to the terms of the agreement anyway.

    1. Re:What kind of idiot by Scutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy."
        - Nancy Pelosi

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:What kind of idiot by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Would agree to terms before they even tell you what the terms are?

      Anyone who's opened the shrinkwrap.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:What kind of idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The kind of idiot who makes deals with Eric Holder. That guy is so shady and such an inept lawyer; this offer does not surprise me in the slightest. Even a freshly minted law school graduate would tell Snowden not to take this deal. Expect nothing to come of this except more embarrassment and proof of Holder's incompetence.

    4. Re:What kind of idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi but I believe she was referring to the fact that the House and Senate much each pass their versions of a bill before reconciliation and a final vote. If one body of congress has passed a bill and the other has not, it is true that you won't know what may be in the final bill. She's a life long politician and should've known better than to say something like that. I'm sure to her, the difference between bills and laws is evident but she should've known the general population wouldn't construe it that way.

    5. Re:What kind of idiot by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > Would agree to terms before they even tell you what the terms are?

      There once was a time when EULAs were printed on the back of a box of software.

      Then the EULAs got longer and smaller print.

      At one point it was suggested, seriously, that the box should say that by opening the box you agree to the EULA inside the box. Does that answer your question?

      Oh, and many 'agreements' that you have no choice but to agree to (ever sign a wireless contract?) also have terms that echo Darth Vader: "I am altering the terms of our agreement. Pray I don't alter it any further." (deep breathing sound)

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    6. Re:What kind of idiot by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Oh no, no, they would completely live up to the promise of not prosecuting him for leaking the docs. However, his taxes would get audited every year, he'd be on the no-fly list, a UAV would circle his house 24/7. They'd get him on something, mark my words, because Snowden committed the one unforgivable crime in the US: he embarassed politicians.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:What kind of idiot by Xeno+man · · Score: 2

      Goes to show the lawyer mentality. All that matters is that Edward gets a guilty plea. He gets that and it shows that he was right. Another mark in the victory column. The reality is only a complete idiot would even consider the offer made for more than a moment. It's basically the equivalent of being held at gun point and telling the gunman, "If you give me your gun now, I'll consider not shooting you."

    8. Re:What kind of idiot by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      What, you mean most Americans don't already have a natural understanding of American legal proceedings?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:What kind of idiot by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Oh no, no, they would completely live up to the promise of not prosecuting him for leaking the docs. However, his taxes would get audited every year, he'd be on the no-fly list, a UAV would circle his house 24/7. They'd get him on something, mark my words, because Snowden committed the one unforgivable crime in the US: he embarassed politicians.

      If that were truly an unforgivable crime, all the politicians in the US would be in jail.

      I think the true problem here is that he embarrassed the bureaucracy.

  4. Pardon by Stargoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A Presidential Pardon, issued at 11:58 am on January 20, 2017.

    Seriously, Snowden's a hell of a guy and did a real good thing - they even recognize this by their claims for the need to limit the actions of the NSA. But the administration cannot condone his actions. Hence, a last minute presidential pardon is the only politically viable option.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:Pardon by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      Hard to accept that deal if you're Snowden. "I promise I'll let you go once I have you in jail." hmm.

    2. Re:Pardon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This would imply that Obama paid attention or that he disagreed with the actions that were originally being leaked, and thus agreed with the leaks taking place. Since it has been shown that Obama's administration has been actively pushing for more of what has been leaked, even in the face of it being leaked, I won't hold my breath.

      Also, considering his public statements (and outright lies) on the subject, I would have to say that this will not happen except to potentially boost his post-Presidency popularity.

    3. Re:Pardon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point of a presidential pardon is that it can't be challenged.

      That being said, there's nothing to prevent the government from making up new charges against him and trying him for those.

    4. Re:Pardon by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      I am under no such belief. Nevertheless, it does not mean that a man cannot regret things that happened. Obama is a man, and most men are good. He might, for the sake of getting things done in Washington, ignore the morals of pardoning Snowden. However, on the last day in office it is common for presidents to pardon people that really deserve it, but it is politically inopportune to pardon. I believe Snowden definitely falls into this category. I also believe that a good man would pardon him.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    5. Re: Pardon by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      Haha, there was this saying in Nazi-Germany: "If the Führer knew", usually directed at corrupt official (state and party) - ignoring the fact that the corruption started at the very top.
      Similarly, people in Russia write letters to president Putin today when faced with such issues - again ignoring the obvious explanation that it all starts at the top...

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    6. Re:Pardon by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I partly agree. I think he should be charged, convicted, then pardoned. Snowden should be charged and convicted because what he did should not be generally legal. He should be pardoned because he broke the law out of necessity, doing a great service to every citizen. I think the trial would be very informative. We would learn things like why the "official channels" Snowden didn't use wouldn't have produced the necessary result.

  5. A reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A Noble prize, complete and absolute immunity to all prosecution, criminal and/or civil and a tickertape parade on arrival back to the USA

    1. Re:A reward by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      I guess he'd rather have a Nobel prize?

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  6. Even if the spooks don't kill him by jobsagoodun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some nut-job will.

    1. Re:Even if the spooks don't kill him by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Some nut-job will [kill him]

      From the pro-spying faction of America? Who would do that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Even if the spooks don't kill him by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Or, the spooks will kill him and blame some nut job.

    3. Re:Even if the spooks don't kill him by Livius · · Score: 1

      Right, because none of the pro-spying folks are extremists or mentally ill...

    4. Re:Even if the spooks don't kill him by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think I know many people who are pro-spying......they are all either of the "necessary evil" group or "the guy I voted for supports it, so I support it" type. Neither one of those is something that would motivate you to kill.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. Assassination by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The alternative could be assassination, and I don't mean by the USA. There are many groups active in Russia who would kill Snowden simply to make the USA look bad (if he dies, regardless of the circumstances, most people will assume he was killed by the US). Returning to the US would alleviate living under that kind of fear (assuming he recognizes it).

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Assassination by Nyder · · Score: 1

      The alternative could be assassination, and I don't mean by the USA. There are many groups active in Russia who would kill Snowden simply to make the USA look bad (if he dies, regardless of the circumstances, most people will assume he was killed by the US). Returning to the US would alleviate living under that kind of fear (assuming he recognizes it).

      What groups?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Assassination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The alternative could be assassination, and I don't mean by the USA. There are many groups active in Russia who would kill Snowden simply to make the USA look bad (if he dies, regardless of the circumstances, most people will assume he was killed by the US). Returning to the US would alleviate living under that kind of fear (assuming he recognizes it).

      What groups?

      Exactly! They're that damned good.

    3. Re:Assassination by saider · · Score: 1

      We're the Russian branch of the Make The NSA Look Bad Front!

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    4. Re:Assassination by runeghost · · Score: 1

      The alternative could be assassination, and I don't mean by the USA. There are many groups active in Russia who would kill Snowden simply to make the USA look bad (if he dies, regardless of the circumstances, most people will assume he was killed by the US). Returning to the US would alleviate living under that kind of fear (assuming he recognizes it).

      So he could return to the US, where he can be hauled off to a black site, held without trial, or murdered on the president's say-so? I think he's better off in Russia.

    5. Re:Assassination by sjames · · Score: 1

      And place him in an even greater fear of living in a country where some of his detractors in Congress have called for his assassination.

      Even with a full pardon, presidential medal and a tickertape parade he would have reason to fear.

    6. Re:Assassination by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Except the part where money can buy government action that much easier in Russia due to high levels of corruption - the kind that warrant gated communities to absurd amounts. Enough money, and Snowden's as good as dead.

      Even if Snowden does get the proper treatment of being sent to a black site (or worse), he's in our hands and controlled more easily.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  8. He's not coming back to the US anytime soon by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least not during this administration. Probably not during the next either, way too many entrenched political interests want to see him dead.

    I can just see the return now.
    Obama: Half of my cabinet wants to give you the Medal of Freedom, the other half wants you shot on the spot as a traitor. Maybe we should compromise and do both.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:He's not coming back to the US anytime soon by odigity · · Score: 1

      ". . . Half of Earthforce wants to give you a kiss on the cheek and the medal of honor. The other half wants you taken out and shot. As a politician, you learn how to compromise...which by all rights means I should give you the medal of honor then have you shot."

                      – Acting President Susanna Luchenko to Captain John Sheridan, 2261.

      http://babylon5.wikia.com/wiki/Susanna_Luchenko

    2. Re:He's not coming back to the US anytime soon by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      At least not during this administration. Probably not during the next either, way too many entrenched political interests want to see him dead.

      Then all it takes is an administration that gives no fucks about what part of the world he and his supporters are in.

      Or one that will look the other way if unfavorable things start happening to people with that information.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  9. Or perhaps it's a reflection on Holder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Eric Holder has bungled every bit of his responsibilities as the head of the DOJ, both legally and morally. It's no surprise that he wants to invert the legal process to pointlessly attempt to save face on behalf of the government.

    After all, Snowden handed over the materials that he possessed. Love him or hate him, stopping "him" will do nothing to prevent the continued leaks and damages to US interests.

    To be clear, Snowden does not deserve to be given a slap on the wrist. He has leaked some pretty damaging classified material that is not questionable in any way. The earliest leaks were most damning to the government, but the majority of leaks have been pretty damning to Snowden (not in terms of scale, but in terms of quantity).

  10. at this point by hypergreatthing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a plea deal is not different than jailing him indefinitely. Basically it's stating please treat me the same way as Bradly Manning, keep on doing all the evil/illegal things you are currently doing and please do not jail any of the real traitors.
    Whistle blowers are not committing crimes. They are just the messengers.

    1. Re:at this point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whistle blowers are not committing crimes.

      When classified documents are leaked, they are committing crimes. The obvious bit is that the next step should be to question whether the material should have ever been classified, as well as whether it should have ever occurred. Whether the public agrees or not, until such a time that both of those concepts are deemed to be in favor of the public, then there was a definite crime committed. In fact, even if it is after-the-fact unclassified, then it was still a crime.

      Snowden released a lot of material that has nothing to do with eavesdropping on US citizens, and that's what changes him from a whistleblower to a traitor.

    2. Re:at this point by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snowden released a lot of material that has nothing to do with eavesdropping on US citizens, and that's what changes him from a whistleblower to a traitor.

      No, it's not. As a US citizen, I believe people in other countries have a right to privacy. If you weren't a selfish and nationalistic, you'd believe so, too. Innocent people simply shouldn't be getting spied on; especially not allies. And no, the fact that "Everyone is doing it!" doesn't make it okay.

      I'm thankful that Snowden revealed the specifics of the government's immoral activities to the public at large.

    3. Re:at this point by hypergreatthing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      let me get to the point.
      Crimes and illegal actions should never be hidden under the guise of national security and security clearance. They should be brought to light by whatever means necessary and the people who are committing those transgressions should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
      Anything other than that is a fraud.

    4. Re:at this point by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      If Snowden should have the book thrown at him, Clapper, Alexander, Feinstein, Obama, Bush, and many more should be subject to multiple executions each. If you want to protect America's national security, the best course of action would be to nuke the entire NSA from orbit. It's the only to be sure.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:at this point by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I am going to throw karma to the wind and agree. I worked in defense long ago and believe me, they remind you very frequently that treason is a federal crime that carries a possible death sentence. I know it is not a popular view on slashdot, but the guy knew what he was doing. He needs a very hefty jail sentence (20+ years) or worse. He is a traitor by definition. He is living in Russia. He has shared secret information with our enemies. You can opine all you want about NSA collecting phone records, but it does not change the fact he is a traitor.

    6. Re:at this point by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And the proper place to take those allegation for investigation and possible prosecution would have been the Inspector General or Congress. That didn't happen.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:at this point by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      "Snowden released a lot of material that has nothing to do with eavesdropping on US citizens, and that's what changes him from a whistleblower to an alleged criminal"

      ftfy

      He is not nor can he be, by any stretch, be considered a traitor (please stop with the knee jerk reaction statements and read the actual definition). It is also apparent that what he disclosed was (1) actual violations of the Constitution by a government agency and (2) potential crimes committed by a government agency that had nothing to do with national security.

      the NSA stinks worse the a dead skunk on the side of a hot Texas highway. it seems to easy for our government to throw the word "classified" onto actions that they feel or know may be illegal so the actions cannot be shown the light of day. All of us passed by that spot on the road and said "something stinks". Edward Snowden made the effort to stop, point to the spot and say "This is what stinks, fix it". My fervent hope for this man is he gets his life back at some point and, as a Society, we keep working to remove the stench that is draped over this country. he did his part, let's do ours.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    8. Re:at this point by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the same way that legally speaking, a law found unconstitutional never existed, a document that was wrongly classified to cover up a wholesale violation of the Constitution was never classified (because those classifying it were not Constitutionally a part of the government).

    9. Re:at this point by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      That only works if higher ups are not implicit in crimes. This goes to the top. Congress and the president were/are fully aware. They're even defending the actions of the NSA.
      The only thing he would of received if he went the route you suggest is a bullet to the head.

    10. Re:at this point by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any law that creates those "crimes," only rhetoric. Law doesn't work like that in general. Do you want to face a judge or police office that only relies on the "law written in their heart"? Or do you prefer the law as written? We're constantly told here that paying taxes is part of the price of civilization, well so is obeying laws that you might not agree with. (Unless you want to make the case that we are dealing with some sort of crime against humanity here.)

      If he had gone to the IG or Congress he might have eventually lost his job, but "a bullet to the head"? No.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:at this point by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      there's no law that creates those crimes?
      Go read the constitution.

      What laws has he broken?
      Espionage laws that require him to be selling secrets to foreign countries which he's never done?
      If this ever goes to court, the whole thing will be wrapped up in national security secrets that he'll never know the evidence for what he's accused of doing.

    12. Re:at this point by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      You can opine all you want about NSA collecting phone records, but it does not change the fact he is a traitor.

      A traitor to what? As a US citizen, I feel he's a hero, and that the government is the traitor. He certainly didn't betray me; I know that much. The only people he betrayed were those engaging in immoral and unconstitutional activities, and I have no problem with betraying such people.

      You people who say "It is the way it is; he's a traitor, and so he deserves to be in prison!" are cowards.

    13. Re:at this point by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      ..... as to the NSA breaking the law the courts have ruled that they were not

      There has been one court ruling that I know of, which stated the NSA was not breaking the law. This ruling was full of "this is a useful program to the government" bullshit, with virtually no references to the law itself. In other words, possibly came from a corrupt judge, and is almost certain to be overturned on appeal, barring more corrupt judiciary.
      There has been at least one court ruling stating the NSA did, in fact, break the law, as well as several government committees that came to the same conclusion. The number of rulings from courts and other sources stating that they did break the law is much greater than the number stating they didn't break the law.

      Maybe you should remove your nose from the NSAs collective ass, and pay attention to what's being said.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    14. Re:at this point by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      He didn't share anything with enemies. He shared with a UK journalist, but the UK is an ally of the USA. It was that journalist that published, allowing "enemies" to read it.

      Having said that, someone else posted that countries nowadays are rivals, not enemies, barring the occasional nutjob run state like North Korea. I tend to agree.
      Those nutjob states, though, that could actually be classifed as "enemies," have leaders that are so mind numbingly paranoid, that they probably wouldn't believe anything that came from the media regarding the NSA, as they'd think it was planted propaganda.
      So, basically, the only thing this has done is embarrass the bureaucracy, and convinced those nutjob leaders that the released documents are definitely not describing what is actually happening.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    15. Re:at this point by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Sharing with anyone that is not cleared is a violation of the contract he signed. I cannot be more clear, he was instructed on what his obligations were when he signed on with NSA. He was probably reminded monthly that the death penalty is on the table if he fails in his obligations. Do you really think he did not know this given the lengths he went to in his escape?

    16. Re:at this point by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      First you said he "shared secret information with our enemies." Then, when it turns out you're demonstrably wrong, you change that to "sharing with anyone that is not cleared is a violation of the contract he signed."
      Keep moving those goalposts. Maybe you'll eventually find something that works for you.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  11. Full Pardon. by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Full Pardon. Presidential Medal of Freedom. Full stop.

    (a) It's time to highlight the oft-neglected Presidential power of pardon and what it's meant to be used for. (b) The Obama White House contact webpage still claims that "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history." It's time put up or shut up on that BS.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:Full Pardon. by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history."

      Maybe that's just an extraordinarily low bar.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Full Pardon. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      How about: put in jail for the crimes he committed. Full stop.

    3. Re:Full Pardon. by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      Why should the president who considers Snowden's actions to be hugely damaging consider him worth a pardon?

      The Obama White House contact webpage still claims that "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history." It's time put up or shut up on that BS.

      Anyone who thought that Obama ever meant any such thing is a complete rube. If you like your transparency the way it is now, you can keep it, period. Right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Full Pardon. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Full Pardon. Presidential Medal of Freedom. Full stop.

      (a) It's time to highlight the oft-neglected Presidential power of pardon and what it's meant to be used for. (b) The Obama White House contact webpage still claims that "President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history." It's time put up or shut up on that BS.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

      All he has to do is prove that all previous administrations were less open and accessible. Politically, that's much easier than giving Snowden a full pardon.

    5. Re:Full Pardon. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Then settle for a posthumous pardon with no medal or anything.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  12. Nobel Peace Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe Obama can give him his, since he's not using it.

    1. Re:Nobel Peace Prize by jmd · · Score: 1

      Hahaha.. that is beautiful

    2. Re:Nobel Peace Prize by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be nice to have a "best of slashdot" section here.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  13. No deal at all by GlobalEcho · · Score: 5, Funny

    This guy cost the government untold fortunes -- not only in dollars but in goodwill. He poisoned relationships with the international community, undermined the confidence of the citizenry in our institutions and ignored the democratic process. He should be in jail, no question.

    Oh, whoops! I thought you were asking about Dick Cheney!

    1. Re:No deal at all by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      well played Sir, well played :)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:No deal at all by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      This guy cost the government untold fortunes -- not only in dollars but in goodwill. He poisoned relationships with the international community, undermined the confidence of the citizenry in our institutions and ignored the democratic process. He should be in jail, no question.

      Oh, whoops! I thought you were asking about Dick Cheney!

      Well played sir!

      I consider myself nominally an Obama supporter (like what other choices do we really have?), but what happens to Snowden will be a huge factor in my final judgement of Obama's legacy. Whose side is/was he on in the end? The established power structure or the people?

    3. Re:No deal at all by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I consider myself nominally an Obama supporter

      Wow.

      (like what other choices do we really have?)

      What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? A mere false dilemma. You don't have to like Obama (or be his god damn supporter) just because you think he's slightly better than the other scumbags. Disliking all of them is a choice. Third parties are also a choice, and can send a message to the scumbags in the main parties.

      You have choices; you just choose to ignore them.

    4. Re:No deal at all by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      I consider myself nominally an Obama supporter

      Wow.

      (like what other choices do we really have?)

      What kind of idiotic nonsense is this? A mere false dilemma. You don't have to like Obama (or be his god damn supporter) just because you think he's slightly better than the other scumbags. Disliking all of them is a choice. Third parties are also a choice, and can send a message to the scumbags in the main parties.

      You have choices; you just choose to ignore them.

      There are no viable 3rd parties in US presidential politics. Who am I going to vote for? Libertarians? Ha! Socialists? If there were a chance that would make a difference, maybe. Ron Paul? You must be kidding. So, you seem to have the answers. Who did you vote for?

      If you lived in NC, like me, your head would explode at the insanity that is the current state govt.

    5. Re:No deal at all by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      There are no viable 3rd parties in US presidential politics.

      Even if that is true, that does not excuse you for voting for evil. Even if it's 'useless' (it's not) to vote for a third party, you should do it out of principle alone.

      But it's not useless. If enough people start voting for third parties, that will send a message to the main parties that they need to make some changes to reclaim those lost votes. And the viability of third parties can be altered if people with your mentality would just disappear; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, even if our system does tend towards two parties.

      There is no excuse to vote for evil. None.

    6. Re:No deal at all by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      There are no viable 3rd parties in US presidential politics.

      Even if that is true, that does not excuse you for voting for evil. Even if it's 'useless' (it's not) to vote for a third party, you should do it out of principle alone.

      But it's not useless. If enough people start voting for third parties, that will send a message to the main parties that they need to make some changes to reclaim those lost votes. And the viability of third parties can be altered if people with your mentality would just disappear; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, even if our system does tend towards two parties.

      There is no excuse to vote for evil. None.

      OK, tell me how Obama is evil and also how you voted for the last 2 elections. The Dems are far from perfect, but overall I will take them over the Repugnantcans any day. It's true, the Democrats are the "corporate lite" party. If you equate that with evil, OK, I can accept that.

      Now if you will excuse me, I must get back to my corporate wage slave job...

    7. Re:No deal at all by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      OK, tell me how Obama is evil and also how you voted for the last 2 elections.

      I voted for third parties.

      Obama is evil because he continues the same unconstitutional activities that were happening under Bush and Bush's predecessors. Any politician that supports this sort of thing is automatically evil, and he has, in fact, come out in support of it.

      The Dems are far from perfect, but overall I will take them over the Repugnantcans any day.

      Again, you're still thinking in terms of 'the lesser of two evils.' That mentality is poisonous and leads to the status quo remaining the same in perpetuity. Suck it up and vote for someone who isn't evil; stop worrying about the bogeymen.

    8. Re:No deal at all by microbox · · Score: 1

      Disliking all of them is a choice.

      In my experience, disliking all usually stems from a rather adolescent approach to understanding politics and human motivations.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    9. Re:No deal at all by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Your experience seems like garbage, if it even exists and isn't just bias towards mentalities that you dislike. Disliking all of them is perfectly valid; they're politicians, after all. There are very few candidates that I actually 'like,' and I am cautious even of them.

    10. Re:No deal at all by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

      "Choosing not to choose is a choice."

    11. Re:No deal at all by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Appealing to such things in order to 'validate' an opinion about a completely subjective matter (whether or not disliking all of them is an "adolescent approach") tends to be garbage. Try again.

  14. Lots of things by ravenswood1000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He deserves a full pardon, nobel prize, ignobal prize, several million dollars, some firm handshakes and "atta boys" and the job as CEO at Microsoft.

    1. Re:Lots of things by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Funny

      and the job as CEO at Microsoft

      You evil evil bastard. Have you no compassion in your soul?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Lots of things by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      And after that, let him run for the office of his choice. He'll have my vote.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  15. A fucking medal. by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that's what.

    1. Re:A fucking medal. by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Yes. Borat's sister has one.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  16. Presidency? by Celtic+Ferret · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if Mr. Snowden, with an appropriate team of advisors, would have the skill required to lead the United States onto a moral path? I'm unaware of his management/administration qualifications, but he certainly has the high ground. The bug would certainly be in the "appropriate team of advisors" departments, and I'm afraid he'd end up like JFK.
    --CF

    1. Re:Presidency? by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2

      What high ground? He took the job with the intent to leak mountains of classified information.

      What difference does that make? None. He still revealed the government's immoral and unconstitutional activities.

      (and there's no proof that he even looked at what he leaked before handing it over to reporters, particularly considering some of the legitimate things that have come out).

      And no proof he didn't, you child molester, you.

  17. 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.

    1. Re:Let us not forget... by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      Small correction: Assange is not a whistleblower, he is a journalist. But in Soviet America, foreign journalists have the right to be persecuted for publishing the truth.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:Let us not forget... by AnAlchemist · · Score: 1

      I would argue that Assange isn't a journalist, but a fame whore. I highly recommend the document "We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks". Link to Netflix Instant View: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMo...

      The documentary is very good, IMHO, and argues that Assange is actually kind of a glutton for media attention. He did a really good thing (started Wikileaks, and perhaps more importantly, gave it name recognition and branding) and and now uses it to empower himself, the bastard. Which doesn't diminish his contribution, but makes him a less trustworthy character at this point.

    3. Re:Let us not forget... by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      I would argue that Assange isn't a journalist, but a fame whore.

      And I would argue that those who are not able to realize he can be both are idiots.

      He did a really good thing [...] Which doesn't diminish his contribution

      So what's the matter with him being a fame whore? You can be the worst kind of person... if you do good to society and I don't have to be near you, great!

      but makes him a less trustworthy character at this point.

      I disagree... you are mixing things.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  18. Re:In the interest of appeasing both sides... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

    Perhaps they can rescind Obama's and give it to Snowden

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  19. The Intelligence community are the traitors by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Snowden uncovered crimes being committed on a daily basis against the citizens of the United States, and knowing that his own chain of command was just as guilty and would silence him (probably permanently) he took it upon himself to make these crimes known to the world, and did so at the ultimate personal risk: His life. Don't sit there and tell me that at some point, they considered sending someone after him to kill him. Regardless he's now an exile. If you ask me, he deserves a medal for what he did, but I'd be just as happy if they left the man alone.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:The Intelligence community are the traitors by Shaman · · Score: 1

      This. All of it.

      --
      ...Steve
    2. Re:The Intelligence community are the traitors by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Snowden uncovered crimes being committed on a daily basis against the citizens of the United States, and knowing that his own chain of command was just as guilty and would silence him (probably permanently) he took it upon himself to make these crimes known to the world, and did so at the ultimate personal risk: His life. Don't sit there and tell me that at some point, they considered sending someone after him to kill him. Regardless he's now an exile. If you ask me, he deserves a medal for what he did, but I'd be just as happy if they left the man alone.

      Yup.

      And consider Holder, who trafficked guns into Mexico knowing that Mexicans would be killed with them for political purposes, then swept the fact that a US Citizen Border Patrol Agent was killed by one of them under the rug, as someone to trust for "let's a make a deal" on the NSA leaks....

      Only a complete idiot would deal with Holder. Snowden should drop a bunch more embarrassing documents just to punish Holder for opening his big fucking mouth on the subject.

  20. 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.

    1. Re:Maybe you're asking the wrong question by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Here's the right answer.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  21. A fair and fully open trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A fair and fully open trial, something he would not be afforded here in the US.
    So with that in mind, a pardon some years down the line would do nicely, any deal offered by the US at this point though can not, and should not be trusted.

  22. He Deserves His Rights by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He deserves his right to speak freely without fear of government retribution.

    He deserves his right to a fair and speedy trial, by a jury of his peers.

    He deserves his right to face his accusers, the accusations they make, and the evidence being presented against him.

    He deserves his right (and duty) to out traitors to the American People, so they may be tried for their crimes as well.

    Unfortunately, the government authorized by the Constitution doesn't seem to agree with anything the aforementioned document says, so neither Snowden, nor the traitors, nor any of the rest of us will be getting what he/they/we deserve.

    So it goes, as Vonnegut would say.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:He Deserves His Rights by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      That's never been true of anyone with access to classified information. You agree to give up lots of rights when you sign up to be a spy.

      Your rights can't be taken so easily, no matter what the government says. That's just further evidence of them violating the constitution.

    2. Re:He Deserves His Rights by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the government authorized by the Constitution doesn't seem to agree with anything the aforementioned document says, so neither Snowden, nor the traitors, nor any of the rest of us will be getting what he/they/we deserve.

      If we choose to not participate, we'll get exactly what we deserve. The status quo.

      Name a single major reform in the past 200 years without organized support.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    3. Re:He Deserves His Rights by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      He deserves his right to speak freely without fear of government retribution.

      Then he shouldn't have accepted his security clearance.

    4. Re:He Deserves His Rights by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair, he can't get many of those rights if he's in Russia

    5. Re:He Deserves His Rights by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair, he can't get many of those rights if he's in Russia

      He won't get any of them if he comes home, so what's your point? At least the Russians have a vested interest in not letting anything happen to him.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:He Deserves His Rights by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Point is he couldn't get the rights he deserves even if the US wanted to give them to him while he's away.

    7. Re:He Deserves His Rights by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Point is, coming home is suicide, and he'd be a moron to trust the same government he outed to give him a fair hearing as they are legally obligated to.

      You're right that Russia has no obligation to respect his rights, yet they do, and his own government does not. That's telling, but not in the way you're thinking it is.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:He Deserves His Rights by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      He deserves his right to a fair and speedy trial, by a jury of his peers.

      He can come to the US can get that.

      Hahaha.. Good one! Oh..wait....you're serious?
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      He deserves his right to face his accusers, the accusations they make, and the evidence being presented against him.

      Again, if he wants it, he can come and get it.

      So all that national security classified shit is going to be paraded through an open courtroom? How naive are you? All the evidence against him will be classified, and conveniently, neither Snowden nor his lawyer, whoever that is, will be cleared to see it, so he most definitely will not be able to face the evidence presented against him. Once he can't face and challenge the evidence, anything else you claim also cannot be faced.

      He deserves his right (and duty) to out traitors to the American People, so they may be tried for their crimes as well.

      Who and what law? It's unclear what law has been broken.

      How come all the blind schmucks who keep claiming this are ACs? Is the cold_fjord account banned by too many people now? Seriously, everybody who claims the government broke no laws, and that court rulings have been in the NSAs favour, are all ACs.

      The government isn't a thinking entity.

      You can say that again.....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  23. Snowden better stay in Russia by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    or sneak in to some other Asian nation that does not sympathize with the BigBrother Orwellian police state the US Govt morphed in to, Hey Snowden if you can read this please stay away from the USA for your own safety because those lieing thieving murdering scum that call themselves a government will more than likely kill you or put you in a prison for life if you come back here

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  24. Civil Vigilante by SirLoper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He did the right things, but in the wrong way. No matter his intentions or the results, both of which are good, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law. My opinion on this would be to acknowledge that he broke several laws, including espionage and other serious offenses, but keep his punishment light (as in non-existent) an call it "time served" for whatever incarceration/detention is needed to get his case in front of a judge that agrees to rule like this. We need to be careful not to praise the acts only because the results were good. Certainly the current whistle-blower laws need heavy reform; they can take that into consideration when handing down sentencing.

    1. Re:Civil Vigilante by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      he should have figured out a way to leak that info anonymously so the government could not figure out who did it

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Civil Vigilante by melikamp · · Score: 1

      We need to be careful not to praise the acts only because the results were good.

      In this case, however, the laws he broke are oppressive: something you forgot to mention. The reason he cannot return is because USA does not have sufficient whistle-blowing protections. Should a citizen be able to report an illegal activity and a gross abuse of power, regardless of the classification of relevant documents? In a democratic society, it should be the citizen's duty, and an activity protected by the law. So we need to be careful to give Snowden praise he deserves for bringing our attention both to the illegal activities, and to the sad state of our legal system.

    3. Re:Civil Vigilante by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He did the right things, but in the wrong way.

      Would you care to define what the "right way" for him to handle it would have been? He went to the Inspectors General, which if they were doing their jobs would be the correct procedure, and was ignored.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Civil Vigilante by SirLoper · · Score: 1

      Here's the needle in the haystack. The core of the issue is that there IS no "right way", which is why I agree with what he did and also believe that the whistle-blower laws need heavy, heavy reform (and hopefully will get such treatment as a result of all of this). I say "wrong way" only because, no matter his moral "rightness" was still illegal. This is the age-old difference between obedience (following the law regardless of 'rightness') and Morality (doing the 'right' thing regardless of the law). By no means do I suggest he be treated as a criminal or a traitor. But the fact is that, the way the laws are currently written, he's both. But then, so were the founding fathers of this country.

    5. Re:Civil Vigilante by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      That would be virtually impossible. Once the leaks started coming the NSA would have done a complete audit of... well, everything. It would be hard enough hiding public activity from the NSA, it would be impossible to hide suspicious activity on their own networks and servers.

    6. Re:Civil Vigilante by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      It would be hard enough hiding public activity from the NSA, it would be impossible to hide suspicious activity on their own networks and servers.

      Considering they still don't know everything he took, I'm thinking you're giving the NSA a little too much credit, here.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    7. Re:Civil Vigilante by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I can think of 535 better people to leak it to after the IG.

      Many of whom are twisting logic to unrecognizable proportions to support the NSAs activities. Where's the guarantee he would have got a sympathetic Member of Congress, rather than a "Wow. Let me look at these documents. I'm just going to go over to <somebody's> office to show them this revelation. Wait here." <30 seconds later, police burst into the office and shoot Snowden in the head for resisting arrest with a stapler>?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  25. Re:ONE OF THESE DAYS by camperdave · · Score: 1

    One of these days... One of these days you're going to forget to click the check-box next to "Post Anonymously" and you will reveal your username.

    And what, exactly, would that tell you?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  26. You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, he revealed some shady intelligence gathering programs the US was running against its own people, but he also went out of his way to dump information on programs we were running against foreign entities. Had he stuck to the former, I'd consider him a hero and would support a full pardon.

    But, when you run off to our biggest political rivals and tell the world the details of how we spy, you're violating the whistleblower's code of ethics to minimize injury. And, for what purpose did it serve? It did nothing to help the American people.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful


      But, when you run off to our biggest political rivals and tell the world the details of how we spy, you're violating the whistleblower's code of ethics to minimize injury.

      He did minimize the cost of injury, and he took on a great personal risk. And you're vilifying him for not taking on even more risk. Only the biggest, most powerful rivals would have been able to not stick him on a plane straight to gitmo or worse. What would you rather he did? Stick around to get tortured? What on earth would that have served?


        And, for what purpose did it serve? It did nothing to help the American people.

      That's hardly his fault now is it. You're basically blaming him for the current administration being so corrupted that even the whistleblowing didn't make a dent.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      Well then, how about this: he gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nobel Peace Prize, a Presidential pardon, a million dollars and a ticker tape parade... and then we draw and quarter him in Times Square.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    3. Re:You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by phorm · · Score: 1

      Seems to me he started with the internal stuff, and then - when pretty much all the allied countries turned against him - he started revealing other stuff as well. So now he has allies in the international scene, as well as putting the gov't on notice that there's plenty more (and possibly worse) that could be let out if they just decide to solve the problem by "removing" him.

    4. Re:You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      No, you wouldn't have, because then you would have moved the goalposts to him not going through the proper channels, which clearly do not work. No matter what he did, you would find some mistake for which to condemn him. He acting against the power structure, so he was wrong. That's the real philosophy people like you state.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Yes, he revealed some shady intelligence gathering programs the US was running against its own people, but he also went out of his way to dump information on programs we were running against foreign entities. Had he stuck to the former, I'd consider him a hero and would support a full pardon.

      But, when you run off to our biggest political rivals and tell the world the details of how we spy, you're violating the whistleblower's code of ethics to minimize injury. And, for what purpose did it serve? It did nothing to help the American people.

      Without proving with certainty with no possibility of doubt that he could massively hurt the US government, he would have been a dead man. Releasing that information HAD to be done to PROVE he could hurt the administration.

      You are completely stupid if you believe otherwise. He would have simply been killed before the media decided what to do with the data.

      Remember, this is the Obama administration that has no problem missile striking US citizens who happen to be accused of being terrorists in foreign countries without even a sham trial. (Some of them are, but some of them might not have been before they were blown up.)

      If anything, releasing that information made it clear he does want to help. Doing so put him at greater risk of ending up in jail assuming the US didn't outright kill him, because that's less excusable during a trial. It was the ONLY gambit that he could play to get the information out.

      So the fault of the information being out there is twofold: the US for doing the illegal and morally wrong shit in the first place, and the US for being corrupt enough that whistleblowers get treated poorly (if not killed) in the first place.

      That someone would come along and do this was basically a certainty.

      And when they did, that they would also take and prove they have massively damaging information is ALSO a certainty.

    6. Re:You can't forgive the bad for the good he did by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      They have been surprised by some of the information, so they don't know for sure what he has. Look into the details of how he got the stuff. THEY HAVE NO IDEA.

      They also have no idea who has information. You can bet there are dead-mans-switches sitting on some of it. What the media has is what he wanted to release, plus the material to make it clear he could strike back.

      A smart guy (Snowden counts as that) would have more stuff set aside being held by someone who's not public about it yet. There are quite a few large encrypted files floating around on BitTorrent if you know where to look. All they would have to do is release a key and thousands of /b/ chan nerds and spooks would have all of it.

  27. What Everyone is entitled to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    trial.

    1. Re:What Everyone is entitled to by jmd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The trail has already happened. The US government is guilty.

    2. Re:What Everyone is entitled to by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      As is the custom of many on Slashdot, you have it backwards.

      Snowden has had no trial, only charges filed, even though he basically admits to breaking the law and damaging US national security.

      The US government has been to court on repeated occasions and the laws and policies in question have passed muster at final judgment.

      These views are, of course, unpopular and will remain so unless or until a wave a unstoppable suicide bombings strikes Western Europe and some select American cities. Then a few people might have an inkling that explaining how the surveillance system works is a bad idea since that suggests how it can be avoided. Do you ever take the bus or plane? Go to a stadium? The future awaits.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  28. Re:It's not what he did, but how he did it by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

    The only traitors here are those in the government, not messengers who inform the public of the government's misdeeds or unconstitutional activities.

  29. The Presidency by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make him the President, then he can see how much it costs to put up with people of his ilk. On the flip side, we'll find out the truth about the Kennedy assassination, Roswell, and Area 51.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  30. final plea by Rich_Lather · · Score: 1

    This is the final option offered up by the government before they send the Seals to go get him.

  31. British citizenship by CdBee · · Score: 1

    And an O.B.E for services to humanity

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:British citizenship by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, an O.M.

  32. He still put lives at risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He deserves a parade ... on his way to prison...

  33. Re:a medal, parade, money and a house not next to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I bet you have Jesus in your heart.

  34. What all traitors deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Death.

  35. A medal. by Shaman · · Score: 1

    Fuckings to those of you who think that he's done a bad thing. Either everyone follows the law, including the government, or it's invalid. The governments haven't been following the law.

    --
    ...Steve
    1. Re:A medal. by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Just like the courts haven't been doing their jobs. That doesn't stop people from mindlessly worshiping scumbags who happen to be judges, though, and treating their opinions like gospel.

    2. Re:A medal. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes it has. NSA had congressional authorization to do what it did.
      So no law has been broken.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:A medal. by Shaman · · Score: 1

      At the time, it did not have legal authority. The subject of whether it's legal so far is two against and one for. I'm fairly certain that over time, it will be judged to be unconstitutional.

      --
      ...Steve
    4. Re:A medal. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Congress does not have the authority to authorize anyone to violate the Constitution.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:A medal. by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Good point. Clearly, you need a new U.S. congress, to repeal those bad laws and install better ones.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  36. Re:ONE OF THESE DAYS by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

    And what, exactly, would that tell you?

    That MyCleanPC injects HOSTS files into your system?

  37. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok. Then what about prosecuting people who committed crimes of violating the constitution. All our other laws are derived from the authority of the constitution. If you do something unconstitutional, then it should not be crime to have someone else blow the whistle on you.

    The excuse "but I was just following orders" has already been tried.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  38. Easy. Quit treating him like a criminal first. by BlatantRipoff · · Score: 1

    Give him the whistle-blower protections he should have and go after the actual criminals. Calling him a traitor and having the Espionage Act hanging over his head only serves those who need to be investigated, giving them the opportunity to further treat the Constitution like so much tissue paper.

  39. We worship capitalism, right? by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    So he should negotiate on those terms.

    He has a portfolio of assets of significant value (as-yet-unrevealed secrets) that can be traded for options/assets that the guv'ment possesses (jail-time, amnesty, for example). Not revealing ABC is worth taking XYZ off the table. Two columns/sides - come to an agreement and be sure to make it very public. Use a third-party to draw up papers (Switzerland?).

    Or, go the clandestine route: Snowden agrees to drop from public view for so many years and not reveal anything further and the US agrees (in writing) to leave him alone wherever he goes (except maybe the US).

  40. Community Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For his crimes he should be sentenced to community service (whether he's found guilty or not). He should be required to serve on a some sort of panel monitoring or reforming the NSA and other agencies, or perhaps as a privacy advocate for the FISA court. He's one of the few people that has demonstrated credibility to serve in that role, and the country needs him.

    1. Re:Community Service by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Ask the courageous people who were involved with eliminating laws for racial segregation.

      They shouldn't have been punished, and the laws should never have existed. There, done. You might be a masochist, but not everyone is.

  41. A medal by kraut · · Score: 1

    Or two. And a job chairing a new oversight committee for the intelligence services.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  42. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And if so, the president down to every food soldier at NSA should be tried for breaching the constitution. Oh, and not by some bribed DC judge, but by jury of the people. I assume that's about 20000 people. Prepare a big courtroom and make room in the prison.

    1. Re:Oh yeah? by behrooz0az · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, You just made a new soldier prototype for the army. http://rollinoatsmarket.files....

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    2. Re:Oh yeah? by runeghost · · Score: 1

      The wonderful thing about the Constitution, that you seem to care about, is that it provides protections and due process so that people aren't subject to mob rule and kangaroo courts, such as the one you are advocating. Clearly all 20000 people are guilty, and if not, it is because of a bribed judge, so lets hang them all. Good Lord, I'm glad I live in the US as it is and not the US as you think it should be. The moral certainty of the outraged around here is very much like a theocracy; better not speak against all the Constitutional scholars around here who know what is best for everyone.

      If only that were so. Thanks to precedents set during the administrations of Obama and Bush, any duly constituted National Guard unit should be able to hold a military tribunal and find those responsible guilty without all that mess and bother about due process and so on. Oh, wait, that was only supposed to apply to people on the government's private hit list, wasn't it?

  43. rule of law by Blitter · · Score: 1

    If I were president i would pardon him and fix the problem.

    Rand Paul had some interesting comments this weekend. He said that this would not have come to light had Snowden not broken the law, but at the same time the law has to apply to everybody and you can't have it both ways: It's ridiculous that people want to throw the book at Snowden (even calling for his death) but we completely ignore that Clapper straight out lied to congress, which carries a 5 year jail penalty.

    --
    I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
    1. Re:rule of law by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 2

      but at the same time the law has to apply to everybody

      Except it doesn't, it hasn't, and it's retarded to even say that knowing this truth. Besides, why the fuck even carry out laws everyone knows are fucking broken and/or stupid?

    2. Re:rule of law by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Why pass them, then, too.

      I suppose it would make sense that an executive charged with executing an unjust law probably should refuse to execute it. But he should probably also have to defend that position before a court, where either he is vindicated and the law struck down, or the law stands and he faces very real consequences.

      Unjust laws should be stricken. Not left on the books and capriciously enforced. That just leads to corruption.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  44. I would reinstate him at the NSA by jbeach · · Score: 1

    Just RTFA. All the way back to the original NY times article, it isn't specified what Snowden would plead guilty to. Presumably not treason - which he isn't guilty of in any event. He has done the US and even the world a great service.

    Sure, there are "political realities" (which should be an oxymoron) dictating that Snowden receives some kind of punishment.

    And I would consider letting him run it.

    Alternately, and perhaps even better, I would "sentence" him to get together with some very smart people to put together a system which restricts the possibility of these sorts of abuses and the secret rules that make them possible. Then I might put him in charge of a board that oversees the NSA and other agencies, and their uses of their power.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  45. It's a trap... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2

    pleading guilty might make a case for extradition stronger and the case for extended clemency weaker? a convicted felon versus a suspected felon might have different standing in regards to who would accept him.... IANAL but it sounds like the game of checkers has just been moved to chess.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  46. A position as director of compliance at the NSA by Idou · · Score: 1

    . . . and a motherf---ing medal of honor.

    To be honest, I would not be surprised if he were actually sent by some other part of the federal government to sabotage a rogue NSA. However, you will never see anyone officially admit it until the NSA is neutered. To do so would be political suicide (or more . . .).

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  47. He better stay away, prison suicides happen by Nightlight3 · · Score: 1

    Whatever the deal he may be offered, he better stay where he is (Russia and China, at least, would love to have him be accessible, as long as he wishes to stay there). Once he is in custody here in USA, anything can happen e.g. he could be found hanging in his cell and declared a victim of suicide. Who is going to investigate?

  48. Just a simple handshake by rfolkker · · Score: 1

    from the President that has the courage to admit to fault, and grant him a pardon for bringing such an egregious overstep of personal freedom to light...

  49. Re:unpopular view: Treason, Jail. For him, and Oba by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

    Both guilty of Treason, failure to protect the constitution and deserve 10 lifetimes in jail. I have no doubt his actions will cost millions of human lives over the next 50 years.

    A strange world is one where we're prosecuting people for crimes they've not yet committed...

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  50. He deserves various nominations by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Awards, kudos and all that.

    But this morning I had this weird thought. This Snowden thing. Makes me wonder if it was designed to bring things to a head much more quickly than it would have otherwise. It seems to me various parties and interests out there seem to have a much larger goal in mind than keeping things as they are. Everything the US is involved in seems to be destabilizing. Pointing out exactly what the US has been up to has added to the destabilization of the civilian population. (The world's top leaders all knew about this and even used the data themselves.)

    It just makes me wonder if the Snowden thing is just another way of adding straws to the situation getting us closer to the tipping point where the parties who have been preparing for this for decades step in like heros and tame the world of civil unrest.

    Just a thought...

  51. If I were Obama? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "If... you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

    I'd offer him pardon on almost everything, leaving only a trivial (1-2 months) jail sentence left over. Then I'd have him murdered while he was in prison.

    The intelligence community is happy because I've sent a clear message of what happens to whistleblowers, and I can continue to play innocent and act pro-whistleblower as I have for ages, letting accusations of it being an assassination fade into conspiracy theory while most of my voting base continues to ignore the problem or is glad I got rid of another "terrorist lover". Seriously, what are the pro-privacy advocates going to do? Vote against me on this issue by voting for a Republican who wants to peek into their bedrooms to make sure there's no sinning going on? Ha!

    What? It's not what I personally want to see done, but then I'm not hypocritical, power-hungry, interest-beholden, and immoral enough to ever want to be President. If I were President, obviously that would not be the case.

    1. Re:If I were Obama? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "If... you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

      I'd offer him pardon on almost everything, leaving only a trivial (1-2 months) jail sentence left over. Then I'd have him murdered while he was in prison.

      If I were Obama, this is what i would have done with Holder. He is the real traitor here.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:If I were Obama? by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      What sort of nonsense is this? Did you have a point?

  52. Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing it. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But, when you run off to our biggest political rivals [...]

    Mitt? Is that you?

    and tell the world the details of how we spy [...]

    If we're to have an open and democratic system, the American people must be told when their laws are being violated by their supposed servants. In an open system, you cannot tell the people without telling the world.

    And, for what purpose did it serve? It did nothing to help the American people.

    Nothing?

    [...] he revealed some shady intelligence gathering programs the US was running against its own people [...]

    That's not nothing.

  53. Before Snowden plead guilty, USA must do it by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Snowden's guilt (if you can call that) was to point out how NSA is guilty of violating the Constitution of the United States of America.

    And because NSA is part and parcel of the government of the United States of America, whatever crime that NSA has committed, the government of the United States must be the one liable.

    In other words, Snowden is a witness to a crime, and he opted to share the evidence of that crime to the world than to keep it a secret.

    If I were to use an analogy - Snowden witnessed and took video of a robbery carried out by a group of cops, and instead of turning the video evidence to the police (whom Snowden already know are baddies), he released that video online, and it went viral.

    Now the police are accusing Snowden guilty of releasing that "supposedly secret" video, but conveniently forgot to mention that very crime whereby a group of cops carried that robbery.

    That is why, before Snowden plead guilty of releasing that "secret video" (which imho Snowden is NOT guilty of anything, but that's beside the point), the cops have to answer for that robbery in the first place.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  54. Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am a little fuzzy here, are you calling Snowden a traitor, for pointing out the vast, incredibly illegal spying program that has massively damaged US diplomatic and economic interests, or the NSA? Please clarify who needs to be shot....

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by elmer+at+web-axis · · Score: 1

      Err no he's a traitor because he gave a oath to serve the NSA.. no matter how you cut it he wasn't just a random dude off the street who happened upon a bag of goodies and is now handing them out... he took a oath to protect the bag.. besides it's all pointless banter.. snowden is a CIA Triple Agent http://www.salon.com/2013/06/1... 'leaking' public knowledge to enable the CIA to keep Bashar al-Assad in power http://gulfnews.com/opinions/c... and prepare for war against China by building invade points in north Australia http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11... ...

    2. Re:Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      The gathering of metadata is based on an FBI case where they prosecuted a man who had been threatening a young woman by collecting his phone records of calls to the young woman based on prior threats the man had made to other people. The NSA used that as a basis saying they can collect all phone metadata for all citizens and search it without a warrant, as well as provide it to the FBI without a warrant, whereas if the FBI wants to collect this data, they need a warrant.

        Note that the NSA is violating their charter and breaking the law just by collecting data between US citizens, so how is this not massively illegal? The NSA is allowed to collect such data between US and foreigners per the Patriot Act and on foreigners based on their charter, but that is not the same thing. If the FBI had created such a thing, I can see it vaguely having a chance at being legal, but not run by the NSA, sorry.

    3. Re:Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      are you calling Snowden a traitor, for pointing out the vast, incredibly illegal spying program that has massively damaged US diplomatic and economic interests

      Before we proceed: are you saying that it's illegal to intercept foreign communications? If so, are you saying that the "diplomatic" damage done be talking out loud about spying on, say, Germany, should also be considered damage that THEY (the Germans) are doing when they spy on us, spy on the UK, spy on France, spy on Russia ... and all of them also spying on each other? Are you that uninformed?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I see your point of confusion, you think that the NSA has been involved with, to use your phrase, "vast, incredibly illegal spying." That isn't true. Nothing that the NSA has been doing has been shown to violate US law, at least that I'm aware of.

      Then you haven't been paying attention.
      Oh, but you're cold fjord, so you've probably had your nose so far up Clapper's ass that you haven't been able to see what's going on around you. Come to think of it, how do you manage to type to post on /. when you're too busy licking boots and buttholes to be able to see the screen?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    5. Re:Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which government did he aid?

      The US government may rule that the US government didn't break the law, but that doesn't mean they didn't break the law, specifically the 4th Amendment (which trumps the later laws that "allow" unwarranted searches).

    6. Re:Traitor Traitor, who has the Traitor? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Ah everyone else is doing it, well that makes it ok....

      One of the old 'rules' of espionage is that everybody spies, everybody knows everybody spies, and nobody talks about it. (everybody in this case, being national intelligence services). By creating such a massive systems that was bound to be discovered, the NSA has torpedoed US national interests in a spectacular fashion. Nobody trusts the US to behave as an altruistic custodian of the Internet now, and they have caused untold billions of dollars of economic damage to US companies. Ironically, it is quite likely that national networks will become more secure, making it harder to do any spying in cases where it might really be important. I have no problem at all in spying on anyone who isn't American, at least when it isn't a billion dollar waste of time tracking all the calls of Dutch house wives, French bus drivers, and Australian auto mechanics. They have created all sorts of mechanisms to get around the letter of the law preventing them from spying on their own citizens, in order to track Muslims who are brown skinned, most of whom just happen to not be connected to terrorist groups.

      Basically these stupid NSA fucks got greedy and have killed the golden goose, and shredded no end of domestic laws to do it.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  55. Here is a list of things he deserves by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    Let's see:

    • A full, immediate pardon. (as a legal mechanism, not because he committed any crimes by being a whistleblower).
    • Presidential Medal of Freedom
    • A serious discussion and legislative effort about surveillance and how surveillance was allowed to reach clearly illegal levels
    • A continous whistleblower award for the rest of his life, so that he doesn't have to work ever again. He put everything on the line for his beliefs, did more than the vast majority of people. The SEC and other groups already give out multimillion dollar whistleblowing awards for mere white collar crime, exposing the surveillance programs ought to rate higher.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  56. Re:1 000 000 by erroneus · · Score: 1

    US dollars?

  57. Are you saying that they are too important to be.. by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... prosecuted ??

    Just when the laws of the United States of America has officially turned into "prosecuting the little guys but leaving the big fish untouched" ?

    The law is the law, and it applies to everybody, even to the president of the United States of America.

    If the president is guilty, he should face the music, same as anybody else.

    It's time we start a total clean-up of those who rule over us --- they are taking our country to the dogs.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  58. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Capricious application of the law is a prime signifier of a corrupt system.

  59. Give him the Presidency by brxndxn · · Score: 2

    Snowden has proved over and over that he is going to take the moral high ground no matter what. Give him the US Presidency and allow the corruption to be completely exposed and made vulnerable. This country is being run by criminals - and 'business as usual' is looking more and more like fascism every day.

    Pardon Snowden.. give him a medal.. and then get behind him and ask him to run for President.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  60. Time Served by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    and subpoena powers to go along with his chairmanship of the High Crimes and Treason Truth Committee investigating the real effing criminals.

  61. That's an awesome deal. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    "Just plead guilty, and all is forgiven."

    I'll bet they'll even throw in an all-expenses-paid vacation in the Caribbean. Generous of them.

  62. Partial Pardon by giltwist · · Score: 1

    I believe fully believe that Snowden should be classified as a whistle-blower with respect to domestic spying. Those revelations were absolutely vital to the continued integrity of our democratic mechanism. However, I do believe he released some documents regarding foreign spying that he should not have. Given the size of the cache of leaked documents, it was, perhaps, inevitable that there would be some documents not directly applicable to the domestic spying issue. I suspect, though, that he knowingly released some of those foreign spying documents to apply pressure to the US government. This crossed the line, but it is understandable. He needs to not be held as completely blameless. As a result, I believe Snowden deserves:

    1) Immediate repatriation to the US
    2) Complete amnesty for all release of documents to journalistic sources, particularly with respect to domestic spying
    3) A due process trial, preferably managed by a third-party watchdog, to confirm/disprove allegations of foreign funding behind Snowden.
    4) Assuming an innocent ruling from 3, a minimal slap-on-the-wrist punishment for the release of classified documents not related to domestic spying. Maybe a couple years of house arrest?

    1. Re:Partial Pardon by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      While not altogether unreasonable, your suggestion fails to take into account the realities of the status quo.

      5) Said house from (4) suffers from a gas leak and explodes in a spectacular ball of fire. Deemed "an act of God" when someone points out that all of the heating was electrical.

    2. Re:Partial Pardon by giltwist · · Score: 1

      While there is some reason to be concerned about whether the government would commit summary execution of Snowden, I'd like to think that he would be able to return home and live, if not normally, then at least reasonably. Moreover, I think such an "accident" would raise a whole lot of red flags for watchdog groups. Let's be honest, if he dies of anything other than old age, people will reasonably suspect the government.

    3. Re:Partial Pardon by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Moreover, I think such an "accident" would raise a whole lot of red flags for watchdog groups.

      It probably would. On the other hand, the government hasn't really given a tinker's dam about "watchdog groups" for some time, until they get their hands on something concrete. Which would just start the cycle over again.

  63. A medal, parade and a full pardon by rumpledoll · · Score: 1

    A medal, parade and a full pardon. Plus his country's thanks for being a shining example of a true patriot.

  64. I think the whole "deals" system is wrong by Control-Z · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't be able to encourage someone to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or better situation.

  65. Slap on the wrist by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    While what he did was breaking the law by revealing information he was sworn to protect...I figure give him a slap on the wrist. Call him guilty on all charges...and then give him 500 hours of community service and let him on his way. The NSA on the other hand...needs to be reigned in and the government needs to have better checks and balances. Where is our recourse when all 3 branches agree and engage in unconstitutional behavior?

  66. he should oversee the NSA from now on by darkeye · · Score: 1

    starting with a full pardon, medals, Nobel peace prize et al

    he should be appointed to oversee the NSA & the like, so that they stop overreaching as they do now

    at least we know Snowden is a person how won't step aside on these issues

  67. A statue, and the presidency of the USA by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    That is what Snowden deserves. The man has shown great courage, absolute impartiality, resourcefulness and an admirable refusal to be intimidated by those he knew would become his enemies. These are excellent qualities for a US president. Moreover, Snowden communicates well, in a low-key tone. Better than drama queen Bush Jr., and better than disappointment-of-the-century Obama.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  68. What does he deserve? by akpak · · Score: 1

    Amnesty, a fucking medal, and a highly paid position in the President's administration as a technology, security, and privacy advisor.

  69. Actually, you can. And should. by nobuddy · · Score: 1
  70. Eric Holder - Worst Attorney General Ever? by runeghost · · Score: 1

    Apparently he thinks he's the attorney general for the Cardassian Empire - verdict first, trial afterwards.

    1. Re:Eric Holder - Worst Attorney General Ever? by mendax · · Score: 1

      Worst attorney general ever? Oh, if only memory were not so short. I think John Ashcroft was pretty bad. And let's not forget that embarrassment Ramsey Clark, Lyndon Johnson's last attorney general.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    2. Re:Eric Holder - Worst Attorney General Ever? by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Oh, the string of Attorneys General is pretty bad, but I can't recall any others in the last 40 or 50 years who acted so much like they were running totalitarian state. Ashcroft at least refused to authorize one surveillance program. Has Holder even done that much? And to be clear, I think it's this bit that really pushed him atop the hill of awfulness in my book.

  71. Deal? by qpqp · · Score: 1

    what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?

    He should be part of a newly formed commission on the protection of privacy along with proven ACLU members. The commission should have rights to amend, extend and modify laws connected to handling of information and constitutional rights Something like a constitutional court.
    Along with a medal, parade and a pardon.

  72. taskmaster tango by epine · · Score: 1

    But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

    Your ultimate appeal to non-discretion is just another form of deterrence porn modestly clad in a knee-length skirt.

    When the rules themselves are a clear and present danger, it's time for collective social judgement to enter the system. Any society that makes rule of law its highest virtue puts itself under a stiff obligation not to enact stupid laws. Rule of law is only as good as the law itself. If the law itself is extraordinarily well conceived, there should hardly ever be a valid exception to the rule of law.

    No provision of law beatifies a corrupt taskmaster.

  73. Did anyone consider... by fsbogus · · Score: 1

    Did anyone consider that perhaps the bureaucracy of DC is so difficult to deal with even if your the President that the campaign promise of transparency could not be fulfilled directly, but by allowing your administration to be one of the most leaked in memory? I wonder if Obama will pardon the whistleblowers during the last few days or weeks of his presidency.

    Just a thought...

    I mean if you are familiar with 'Wu Tui', then this could well pass through your mind, though this could be an altered state of Wu Tui. The President campaigns for transparency and his administration leaks like a sieve because the promise goes unfulfilled. This might've been his most effective way to achieve his goal while working within the boundaries of the bureaucracy.

    --

    The statement below is FALSE

    The statement above is TRUE

  74. Re:Are you saying that they are too important to b by runeghost · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure when it changed, but it became obvious once Obama was in office and decided to let the previous administration's habit of torturing people to death get swept under the rug.

  75. Well... by bmajik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ok, if the US government had _any_ credibility that they weren't just going to off this guy the second they could...and there was ANY credibility in the courts..

    heres what SHOULD happen

    He should get charged with whatever crimes he is alleged to have committed.

    In the course of his trial, he should name all of the official channels he tried to use to "whistleblow" the "right" way. His superior? His superioer-superior?

    Each person he names should charges brought against them, and subsequently be put on trial.

    Snowden should have a full trial, and the people he implicates in that trial should all be followed up on for prosecution.

    The methods he used to do what he did should be revealed in court and handed back to appropriate govt agencies, who should improve their internal security.

    The people and practices that prevented him from whistleblowing in the "right" way should be removed from service.

    Ultimately, snowden will probably be convicted of something or other via this trial. And then immediately after the conviction, he should be pardoned by the president, owing to the fact that the greater good he did for the American people by exposing the systematic law breaking by its own government greatly exceeds any legal wrong he might have done.

    He should have his voting/firearm rights restored in the event that the charges against him were felony charges; the net result is that not felony should appear on his record.

    None of this will happen because our government is shit.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:Well... by bmajik · · Score: 1

      hahahahahahahahahaahah

      I am the last person on this planet that would vote for the recent crop of Democrat candidates.

      I'm an voluntarist, if labels are important to you.

      Slavery used to be the law.

      Ignoring the law -- or in this case, the laws that protect government when government breaks the laws at the expense of the innocent -- seems prudent.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  76. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    The excuse "but I was just following orders" has already been tried.

    In this case, I would be ok with prosecuting the ones who initially gave the orders.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  77. I wish the low-information crowd would quit using by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    That was not a pass/fail vote on the bill.

      The GOP had forced a vote on whether the bill was to be introduced, then demanded before the vote to be allowed to introduce the bill. Pure politics bullshit. if they wanted to see the bill, they should have allowed it to be introduced without impeding it.
    What you are crowing about is the GOP saying "No, you cannot give us a copy of the bill until you give us a copy of the bill!! We refuse to look at the bill until after we have seen the bill!"

    I am not sure which is worse, that they did it or that you bought it.

  78. Re:This is what the United States has come to: by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, the world has put the US on trial for failing to live up to the US constitution,

    Have they? Admittedly, it's the sort of thing that would be kept out of the media since they've become little more than propagandists, but I would have thought I'd at least seen it on a blog somewhere. The harshest thing I've seen out of anyone who wasn't already talking crap from the moral low ground (Iran, DPRK, etc...) have been various "sternly worded scoldings." No one's had the balls to actually take us to task for it, though.

    It would be interesting to see, to be sure.

  79. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bush pardoned himself before any charges could be brought up against him. Why stops Obama from pardoning Snowden?

    We all know that Snowden [i]should[/i] be protected by the whisleblower protection act, but the government is weaseling its way around the law, as per usual. Funny, since he was working for the government, he is liable for espionage charges, but suddenly when it comes to whistleblower protection, he's "only a contractor, not an actual employee, so it doesn't apply to him." Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

  80. Oh, a few of the Russian ones by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    like the "totally not undeercover NSA" gang. I also hear that the "Yo, not an NSA Mole" gang is up and coming.

  81. Presidential Medal of Freedom? by smchris · · Score: 1

    Why not? Obama is the appropriate Nobel Peace Prize winner to bestow it for maximum satire.

  82. the problem here by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    The entity Snowden is blowing the whistle on is the same entity responsible for deciding if he should be prosecuted (or persecuted). This is an egregious conflict of interest that doesn't happen when someone blows the while on a corporation.

  83. Trial, Then Commuted Sentence by Macgruder · · Score: 1

    There's a strong case that he broke the law and committed treason.

    Charge him, try him.

    Then, if he's found guilty, commute his sentence to whatever time was served during the trial. No pardon. He's still a felon. The give him a beer and throw him a party.

    Maybe some administration in the future can pardon him, when he's on death's door.

    Face it. He did some wrong For the right reasons, perhaps, but he still did something wrong. That should not affect the guilt or innocence finding, but rather the severity of the sentence.

    --
    I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
    1. Re:Trial, Then Commuted Sentence by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Personal aggrandizement through hubris isn't the right reason.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  84. Deport him! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    To Canada, and then give him the job of head of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) or probably more appropriately the CSCE (Communications Security Establishment Canada).

    We would like him up here.

    Unfortunately with our current government, Harper would probably work him over personally just to please his American masters.

  85. Your NSA paycheck cannot be processed by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Unable to verify SHILL_ACCOUNT_1287 due to failure to log in.

  86. Let the Russians keep him by stevez67 · · Score: 1

    Good riddance.

  87. Re:Are you saying that they are too important to b by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    The United States ceased to be a country of laws years ago. We are now a country of policy. It doesn't make any difference what the actual laws say; the administration is going to go by what they consider their "policy" is. The President is picking and choosing which law gets enforced.

    You love it when your guy is in power, but hate it when the other party's guy is in power. Nobody is ever held accountable to a common standard. And thus we continue to slide into totalitarianism. This is how it can start, folks.

    As for Snowden, I say he should get a pardon. Of course he shouldn't hold his breath until that happens.

  88. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by danlip · · Score: 2

    That's very hard to prove. Person A says they were following orders from person B, while person B claims that A went rogue and had no orders. Meanwhile all the documents that might prove it one way or another are classified.

  89. 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.

    1. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by aminorex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I propose a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and endorsement for the Nobel Peace Prize.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by s.petry · · Score: 2

      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.

      What? Honestly I'm not sure if you meant to say what you said because you contradict yourself. Either a typo, disingenuous, or schizophrenic. You state that evidence should not be gained by illegal means, which should imply that the poison fruit, tree, and garden are all simply wrong. Instead, you claim that for some reason we need the poison and just can't use it on certain people.

      The poison tree won't work, because it will always impact innocent people. This is an absolute historically accurate statement. The only way to be safe is to not produce the poison.

      A common issue is that people blur the line between espionage and intelligence gathering. Further, people ignore the fact that when the state has secrets there is no way of knowing "what" they are keeping secret. As JFK stated "The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society." Our founders knew this, which is why there were no provisions for spying in the Constitution. And before someone abuses the JFK statement, the US Government may not have given away battle plans during wars, but it was essential that the populace knew we were at war (and why, and who was leading the troops, etc..). Lies beget more lies, immorality leads to further immorality, and dishonesty leads to further dishonesty.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      If there are more crimes to expose, why would pardoning Snowden prevent the release of future damaging documents? Snowden would never be able to set foot in US again, but he's already shown himself willing to make that sacrifice.

    4. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by deconfliction · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      huh? My understanding was that Snowden pilfered a very large dataset, then handed it over to a select group of journalists. I suppose Snowden may have investigated the dataset enough himself to know some things he could divulge that the journalists wouldn't for ethical reasons. In that case, maybe there is a tiny bit to what you said. But in the general case, I think and hope it is safe to assume now that if there is anything in the dataset that one of the journalists has access to that the journalist believes should be released to the public for ethical reasons- well, I think and hope that whatever happens to Snowden is as irrelevant to that journalists decision as possible.

      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.

      I guess maybe I've lived a pretty long life and now you are making me unsure of the law. I would have thought the espionage itself was illegal. Something about the government having to pay you for your pig if they take it or some such.

      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.

      The problem is *that does not happen*. I think our goal should not be either to create, or eradicate such "poison gardens". But rather to understand that they exist, can be created, and can be used for ethical or unethical purposes. The real dark side to all of this is how much unethical behavior goes on to cover up lesser instances of unethical behavior relating to these poison gardens. And such amplification of unethical behavior can lead to very bad places. I'll admit, that for much of my paranoia, the place I live isn't as bad as I feared it could become 10 years ago. But it's pretty bad. I'd rather be reading more slashdot articles about humanity cleverly engineering solutions to its problems, than cleverly creating what this human being considers to be very big problems. I hope I've been alarmist. I hope 20 years from now we look back and say- oh those animal-house/night-shift whackos at the NSA and GITMO and AbuGhraib, what *exceptions to the rule they were*. I really, really, really pray and hope for that. Because I also really really really fear that the dark impulses of humanity that led to widespread slavery, and hitler and all that.... well, I'm a lot less comfortable with our distance in years from those things than most of society seems to be.

    5. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by gpdawson · · Score: 2

      Pardoning Snowden... would prevent the release of any further damaging documents..

      Seriously?! This train left the station a long time ago, and is now pretty much at full steam. Are you saying that all Snowden would need to do is stand on the track with his hand up, to stop it? Sorry my friend. It's out of his hands now, and I, for one, am very grateful for every additional leak that serves to further corner the perpetrators of this outrageous lack of accountability, otherwise known as the NSA.

    6. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by carnivore302 · · Score: 1

      And a statue of him right next to lady liberty.

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    7. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Presidential Medal of Freedom

      irony much?

    8. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Because of course, when a Republican administration gets elected, it can't possibly be NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and MoveOn that will be the targets of unnecessary IRS audits informed by NSA spying. Not in a million years.

      Once government has grabbed power, government will abuse power, until the revolution comes.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by lsatenstein · · Score: 2

      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.

      Snowdon has no documents, they were distributed to a number of newspapers. He is not a criminal, but a citizen who pointed out, via the public, the wrong doing that happens when the government institutions are not audited.

      Imagine if you actually audited the senators or congress for expenses or lobbying. Wow, would you find excesses galore.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    10. Re:Full pardon, and here is why. by flatrock · · Score: 1

      I think you are misunderstanding the "fruit of the poison tree". Any evidence gained from an unconstitutional search is inadmissible. That doesn't however, prevent the authorities from trying to gain that information through an alternate path, thus parallel construction. Intelligence can't be used to get a warrant or used in court without allowing the defense to challenge it.

      However it can be treated like any other tip, and as long as the authorities use legal and constitutional means to investigate that tip and to gain any evidence they use to get a warrant, they use evidence the gain as a result of following up on that tip.

      Furthermore, evidence is only excluded if constitutional rights were violated, or the legislation that makes gathering it illegal includes an exclusionary rule.

      For example the Pen Register Act doen't include an exclusionary rule. Police can use an illegal pen register to gather metadata about a phone call and it is still admissible. The police could be prosecuted for doing so, but the evidence is still admissible. It's the result of the Supreme Court ruling Smith v Maryland which is at the root of much of the recent controversy lately.

  90. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the people who we believe have broken the law belong to the same team that is in charge of prosecuting people who have broken the law.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  91. Like who? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    and you were Holder and Obama, what sort of deal would you try to strike with everybody's favorite secrets-leaker?"

    Well I'm not an elitist tyrant like those guys, so there's no way I would do anything similar, were I in the same position.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  92. Slashdot Poll.. by Idetuxs · · Score: 1

    that would be Interesting.

  93. Three to five years by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    You don't get to intentionally divulge classified information and walk away. Even if it's patriotism instead of treason. The plea deal should be 3 to 5 years, minimum security prison.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  94. '''has already been tried..." by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    ...in Nuremberg, and lost.

  95. Here's what he deserves by spiritplumber · · Score: 1
    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  96. Difficult question by mendax · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A pardon or prison? What to give?

    Edward Snowden's situation is most difficult to analyze. If all he did was reveal the NSA's surveillance on American citizens then I would say he deserves a full pardon and the awarding of the Medal of Freedom from the president. He did us as much of a service as Daniel Ellsberg did when he spilled the beans by giving the New York Times the Pentagon Papers, demonstrating the Lyndon Johnson's administration systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress about the government's involvement in Vietnam.

    But he did more than that; he also revealed the legal and legitimate (if somewhat dodgy in some cases) spying on those in other countries, including Angela Merkel's cell phone conversations and the penetration by the NSA of the Chinese communications infrastructure. For that he deserves a long prison sentence.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Difficult question by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      But he did more than that; he also revealed the legal and legitimate (if somewhat dodgy in some cases) spying on those in other countries, including Angela Merkel's cell phone conversations and the penetration by the NSA of the Chinese communications infrastructure. For that he deserves a long prison sentence.

      It is 2014. The world is a smaller, more interconnected place than the place your foreign policy came from. When our founding philosophers talked about inalienable rights, and layed down such things as our Bill of Rights, do you really think that they meant for those comforts in life not to be owed to an average Chinese citizen or even a human woman named Angela Merkel?

      The days of foreign policy considering it to shit on everybody outside its borders should be over. The world is Growing Up. Look at the population, what 7 billion today, how many billion was it 100, 200, 1000 years ago? Things are going to get inhumanely ugly if we don't start growing the fuck up and talking openly as respectful adults about these issues Real Soon Now. The Stasi with the internet and modern mobile phone network are an unnacceptable threat to humanity. Like Slavery.

      The ability for the government to literally enslave its citizens with a recipe of technology including cheap solar powered drones, and the existing cloud of modern smart phones is utterly fucking terrifying to me. I self medicate with copius quantities of alcohol and cannabis. I have slept much better in the 7 months since the Snowden revelations, because now it seems like we actually get to talk this shit out in public, without *realistic* estimations of what is going on with the secret government being shouted down as tinfoil hat theories.

  97. Or... NSA Director? Re:Lots of things by Fubari · · Score: 3, Interesting
    How about offering him a full pardon and offer to make him the NSA Director?

    and the job as CEO at Microsoft

    You evil evil bastard. Have you no compassion in your soul?

  98. Ex DOJ lawyer agrees by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/08... This is from a "former head of the U.S. Justice Department Asset Forfeitures Office and a federal prosecutor."

  99. Here's what he should get: by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

    - A full pardon
    - Two ounces of the finest Colorado weed
    - A handjob from Katie Perry
    - A Sunday Morning talk show on Al Jazeera
    - A controlling owership stake in the National Review

    That's what he should get.

  100. The Founding Fathers by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    I will answer the question with quotes from 2 founding fathers:

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." Patrick Henry

    "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

    Does any more need to be said?

  101. NDA by setrops · · Score: 1

    I am sure he signed plenty of NDA's

    If he didn't like what he was doing he should have quit.

    I don't beleive he deserves jail time but he is no hero either,

    But whoever went in front of congress and lied about data collection, that guy needs some repercussions for that!

  102. Well, you know... by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

    ...deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

  103. Re:Deserve? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    You left out the obvious and best choice: Hero of Russia, nee Hero of the Soviet Union

    At least the choice of music is easy - it is the same as the old Hymn of the Soviet Union.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  104. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  105. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Snowden should be jailed for breaking the law. But not until all those in the government who broke the law and/or the constitution are jailed as traitors to their country first!!!

  106. So, what exactly is the Gov't offering? by LaughingVulcan · · Score: 1
    A) Plead guilty and they "consider how to handle his case???" B) Plead not guilty or remain in exile and they won't consider how to handle his case????? And the B answer is probably true - they'll probably throw down for maximum sentences. Which reveals the stupidity of the DOJ/AG/Executive Branch.

    What does he deserve? He exposed the stupidity of having a secret intelligence gathering organization in a society that supposedly values free and open exchange of information and presumes all human beings have inalienable rights and limits upon the government. Which the government has broken. He couldn't do that without releasing embarassing facts in an illegal manner.

    He deserves pleading guilty and a complete suspended sentence (asking for a pardon is a little much but not completely undeserved,) and the Nobel Peace Prize. And possibly expungement of his conviction upon serving the suspended sentence - not that anybody who matters will ever forget his name, but may for his rights.

    The more interesting question is what the government deserves. Something with a hell of a lot more teeth than the Church Committee, for starters. And a new constitutuional amendment, criminalizing those governement officials and workers who violate the contsitution as currently amended, making such crimes of turpitude equivalent to treason or espionage.

  107. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  108. consequences by ubermiester · · Score: 1

    While the consensus here appears to be that the "ends justified the means", what mechanism should be used to actually label someone a whistleblower vs a criminal/traitor? After all, not everyone thinks the NSA should be barred from reading emails or keeping meta-data. (I tend to agree that they overstepped their mandate and should have more explicit limitations, but not that they are an out-of-control menace that must be stopped at all costs).

    If, for example, someone working for the NSA thinks a particular program is "bad" and leaks details that leave it hobbled, should they be given a pass because some percentage of the US population agrees? Should it be based on opinion polls? Maybe just /. commenters? Should we mimic the Romans when they honored Passover by letting the crowds pick a criminal for pardon? We can pardon a Turkey and a whistleblower for Thanksgiving.

    The point I am trying to make is that Snowden may deserve leniency based on "mitigating circumstances", but he is not accused of "political" crimes. He is accused of leaking state secrets. Such cases cannot be left to trial by Twitter. Yes, trust in government is at an all-time low, but that does not make it irrelevant. And it certainly doesn't make it wrong on everything. If people get to do whatever they want in the name of "fighting tyranny", we will end up with a kind of "Stand Your Ground" precedent for leakers - "I felt threatened by the NSA spying on penguins in Peru, so no criminal charges should be brought."

  109. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  110. Re:Whistleblowers to the NY Times not China ... by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

    Whistleblowers go to the press who then informs the public. They do not go to China or Putin's Russia where these countries respective security services can pressure a person to reveal things they might not want to.

    You mean, the members of the press who Snowden, of all people, knew very well were being surveilled directly or indirectly by the people he sought to blow the whistle on?

    Of the many horrible decisions made by President Obushma in the last 10 years, I think his most enduring political legacy might just be his excellent job of prosecuting/persecuting whistleblowers and stifling public review of how the governmental sausage-grinder works. By the end of the second decade of the 21st century, people will have been molded into an attitude of reflexive submission to their Overseers.

    --

    Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
  111. re: spying on allies by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I don't think "everyone does this" is any kind of justification for doing something wrong. An act doesn't become justified simply based on the number of people who engage in it.

    IMO, spying is really something that needs to go away, except against enemy nations during wartime. It puts the person hired as the spy in a very risky situation, being paid to lie and steal information for a government that has no entitlement to receive it in the first place.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if most spy operations go on today primarily because, "The other guys are doing it back to us, so we HAVE to." Sounds like preschool logic to me.

    So in that sense, I don't hold Snowden accountable for leaking some of that information. Most of the feigned outrage on the part of other nations is probably just posturing to begin with. Pretty sure the higher-ups already knew the U.S. was spying on them before Snowden "revealed" it.

  112. A Presidential Nomination by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

    Snowden should run for President, or possibly better, vice-President. America needs heroes right now. Failing that, NSA Director would be a good outcome for everyone.

    I am being deadly serious.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  113. No-win situation by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    The excuse "but I was just following orders" has already been tried.

    True, but it typically only fails as an excuse when the people who gave the orders have been removed from power. The problem with illegal orders is that while those giving them are in power not following them is illegal but once they are out of power having followed them is illegal. It's a no-win situation for those involved.

    1. Re:No-win situation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The only winning move is not to play.

    2. Re:No-win situation by anagama · · Score: 1

      Catchy, but if you don't play, they just say you sympathize with the other side and line you up against the wall anyway. "You're either with us, or you're against us."

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  114. 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.

  115. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  116. Re:ONE OF THESE DAYS by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    In your case, it tells me you are a poorer cousin to Superdave, the astounding and adventurous stunt man and provocateur. As camperdave, you are more Winnebago to Superdave's private jet. You are state parks and camp fires to your Cousin's North Pole trek and Burning Man experience. So indeed the AC is correct, our user names tell all about us ... or so heshe/it thinks ...

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  117. Sad that this poem has become true by mark.hirschmaan · · Score: 1

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...... Sad that this has come to pass in the country that it has and when people do speak out they are treated as traitors

  118. unpopular but interesting opinion by fritsd · · Score: 1
    Judging from the reactions yours was indeed an unpopular opinion :-)

    Snowden committed crimes. For the rule of law, he should be tried and sentenced to the prescribed penalty for those crimes.
    I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

    (emphasis mine)
    You bring up an interesting point, and I don't think that you're trolling.

    But your statement presupposes that you're living under the rule of law, in the USA at the moment.
    But, we have proof that this is not so:

    • 1. US Congress security oversight committee asks Clapper: is it true that you're doing mass surveillance on US civilians? (I paraphrase; feel free to look up the original text yourself and post it here)
    • 2. Clapper says no.
    • 3. Snowden proves that the answer should have been "yes"
    • ???
    • 5. Security oversight committee notices that Clapper was lying under oath to his bosses (them), and begins an impeachment procedure against that recalcitrant underling
    • no... that's *NOT* what happened; and this is, in fact, the scary thing for us outside the USA:

    • 5. Security oversight committee notices that Clapper was lying under oath to his bosses (them), and decides to increase the NSA's budget
    • 6. If you haven't noticed this yet, this is actual proof that you currently don't have the rule of law, otherwise the media's attention would be directed to Clapper and Alexander and not to scapegoat Snowden.
    • 7. No profit. Seriously. I think you have NO idea of the damage this has done to US interests worldwide.

    To paraphrase it in computer-like Slashdot terms:
    NSA >> official USA government
    NSA pwns official USA government
    NSA is above the US law (which means that you don't have rule of law which was your original point)

    So... tell me.. if we want to do business with an American multinational; or sign a trade agreement with the USA; who do we have to talk to? Whose is the hand up the puppet's bum? It is unclear. Conspiracy theories are just theories, but the reality is that outsiders cannot know who currently leads the USA (just that it's not the official president and government).
    Better not to do any business with USA until the situation is cleared up. If it turns out that e.g. the Mafia is pulling the strings of the NSA/USA government, then we'll at least know whom we're negotiating with, and what negotiating points might be of strategic value of them.

    tl;dr version:
    security organizations cause scandal. well, shit happens. that is not nice but there are procedures under rule of law to correct it. For government employees in USA I belive it's called "impeachment" (it's not just for presidents, you know).
    the people in oversight/power react to the revelations with "oh well.. so our employees lied to us.. let's increase their budget". That is NOT normal. People in power (congressmen) are probably not the kind of pushovers that would react like that, or they wouldn't have climbed to the top of the US political pyramid in the first place. Can you tell us if many congressmen like Senator Dianne Feinstein actually have humble, kindly personalities? We don't see them on TV very often over here.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  119. There are two problems by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    1) NSA MAY have broken the law. 2) He definitely broke the law. NSA may need some government action, because it isn't clear if they actually broke the law, or some individuals' interpretation of the constitution. Mr. Snowden definitely broke the law, and needs to be prosecuted. Any altruism which might have been his objective - and I question if there really was any - is way overshadowed by his blatent disregard for the law. He didn't just release information about spying on US citizens; he released a lot of other information which has nothing to do with whistleblowing. This man did severe damage to our country, and needs to be punished accordingly.

    1. Re:There are two problems by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      1) NSA MAY have broken the law.

      They violated the constitution, which is the highest law of the land; that's a simple fact, no matter what judges rule. Furthermore, even if that were not true, their actions were evil and absolutely immoral.

      2) He definitely broke the law.

      You treat all laws as if they're the same; they aren't. Violating everyone's privacy by conducting surveillance on them is astronomically worse than someone revealing that such a thing is happening.

      You can take your unjust laws and stuff 'em.

  120. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    And often that's the only justification for classifying them.

    Ordinary people put evidence like that through a shedder, but the psychos running our government don't even want to destory the records that incriminate them, so they create legal protections for hiding them.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  121. Put him in charge of the NSA by Badlight · · Score: 1

    He seems to think he knows what the agency should be doing and how, which is more than I can say for anyone else in the government, so hire him back and let him run it.

    That will teach him.

  122. Well, to be really specific by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

    Congress interfered by granting his testimony a limited immunity, in turn barring the (fumbling?) prosecutor from using the same. Perhaps they'll be that dumb again. Certainly it would be a very interesting hearing.

  123. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    [A]re you honestly not smart enough to believe [...]

    Intelligence is not a function of one's beliefs. I have very different beliefs about religion, philosophy, and politics from a great many people, including people on Slashdot, but I would be rather stupid to assume that they were stupid on this account. Indeed, someone could have views diametrically opposed to my own on the all most important questions and I wouldn't think them less smart for the fact.

    Now, how one arrives at beliefs, that can tell a thing or two about intelligence. But that's not what you asked about. If you'd honestly like to know my views on Russia, and aren't just making an assertion in the form of a question, then the old article I linked comes close.

  124. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Mitt? Is that you? [theamerica...vative.com]

    You probably didn't notice I was careful to use the term "political rivals". Russia AND China tend to stand on the opposite side of the balance in the current international climate. I'd never call Russia our #1 or #2 foe because they're largely marginalized (just the political equivalent of being very loud).

    If we're to have an open and democratic system, the American people must be told when their laws are being violated by their supposed servants. In an open system, you cannot tell the people without telling the world.

    That is insanely naive. You think you should have access to nuclear codes or top secret military campaigns just because you live in a democracy? And, had you read my posts carefully I was pretty clear in delineating the different between Snowden leaking domestic espionage campaigns vs foreign campaigns. That was the WHOLE purpose of my post!

    Nothing?

    Americans already assume we spy on foreign governments. The only thing Snowden has accomplished is blow up a lot of ongoing operations. Now, how does that help us?

    That's not nothing

    Again if you bothered to pay attention to what I wrote, I said I'd pardon him if he was motivated by the public good. But, you take a closer look at the kinds of information Snowden leaked. All he did was dump whatever he could get his hands on. Some of that is nothing more than personal and touchy correspondences. That is NOT what "minimizing injury" means in terms of the whistleblowers' code.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  125. He didn't 'leak' secrets by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    He copied classified information, regardless of the ability of the data to address the concerns he had, and arranged to have them made public. And admitted to it.

    He then fled the country to escape prosecution.

    He has already admitted his involvement in the breaking of several laws. There is no question he did those things.

    The only question is whether or not his reason for doing so was enough to justify his actions.

    So far, I don't see any valid legal reason to not find him guilty and toss him in jail for the rest of his life. On multiple charges.

    The only reason I would agree to is if he had a specific person whose life was in danger that he was trying to save. And that person was a US citizen whose life was in danger because of the actions of the NSA. And that specific person wasn't someone trying to do harm to the United States. (Whether the NSA is doing harm or intending to do harm is an opinion, not a fact.)

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  126. The United States of StaziLand by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    Plead guilty and then get a fair trial, welcome to the United States of StaziLand. Snowden did the US and the world a favor by exposing the US state security apparatus for what it really was, a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. ref

  127. The Presidential Medal of Freedom by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Can't think of someone more deserving.

    As opposed to *firing* Clapper and stuffing him in jail for lying under oath to Congress.....

                    mark

  128. An apology, a pardon, thanks, and a job by SeanBlader · · Score: 1

    "Mr. Snowden, I, Barrack Obama, apologize for this ordeal you've been through. You've done the people of your country the greatest service any of us could possibly ask of you. In that vein, I issue you a full pardon for whatever crimes some people may think you've done, I also want to thank you for your help in identifying these issues that my administration has continued to perpetrate. You are a man of great integrity, honesty, and owner of the biggest set of cohones next to Jack Ryan that I've ever known. Not only is it a great honor to meet you in person to offer you this sorry excuse of an explanation, but in addition, I'd like to offer you a free home on Federal land, and a generous allowance to live out your life on US soil as you legally see fit. It would be my hope that you would also accept an offer of permanent employment with the Federal Government in a role of Homeland Security Watchdog where you can continue your work of protecting our people from ourselves going forward." That's kind of the gist of what should happen.

  129. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Bush pardoned himself

    Fiction. Deliberate BS on your part.

    Why stops Obama from pardoning Snowden?

    Recognition that he (Snowden) babbled about a lot more than just say "the NSA is doing stuff we all know they're doing." Including specific details on overseas operations/capabilities.

    We all know that Snowden should be protected by the whisleblower protection act

    No, we don't all know that. Because he didn't pursue his crusade using any of the procedures that would grant him that protection. Not even close.

    but the government is weaseling its way around the law

    Really? Which one. Be specific. The law is very clear about taking over other people's NSA user accounts, dumping tons of data, running off with it, and disclosing it in direct contradiction to the oath you just recently swore not to do that very thing.

    Funny, since he was working for the government, he is liable for espionage charges

    You don't have to be working for the government to be prosecuted for espionage. Why are you just making stuff up?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  130. What did Snowden deserve? by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    Presidential medal of freedom (which for some unknown reasons went to Oprah).

  131. vote for Snowden by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    If we elect him President, he can pardon himself, right?

  132. The whole world is watching. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    And take a look at Ghandi -- in many cases, the idea was to protest in a non-violent manner by continuing to do something that you should be able to do, but let the British soldiers beat you -- accept your punishment, so that the British citizens themselves might become outraged at what their "law enforcement" was doing, and thus the laws might be changed.

    Yes this was also MLK's aim, many of MLK's followers (of all colours) were beaten by police themselves or the police stood idly by while they were beaten by members of the public. It became a nightly event on the news, decent American's were outraged at the senseless violence from the authorities and millions of middle class citizens stood up in their defence. A search for "civil rights violence" on youtube will give abundant examples of those news reports and it's very clear the protesters did not fight back. Similar revulsion and outrage was apparent when US soldiers were shown massacring a captured Vietnam village on the six o'clock news.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  133. Fuck the 'rule of law.' by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    I think you have a misunderstanding. In our society, the 'rule of law' is based more on color, wealth, politics, connections, and whether the justice system 'likes' you than on innocence or guilt.

    *fuck* the rule of law. Laws have no judgement, rationality, and are subject to incredibly selective enforcement by cops, prosecutors, and the coercive apparatus of the government as a whole, entirely at the whim of officials who have no accountability or responsibility.

    You really want a system where innocence or guilt is decided based on social class and race? Because that's where we're at right now.

    If you'd like to talk about the rule of law, we can talk about our broken court system, where innocent until presumed guilty is a legal fiction, and better than 90% of crimes are resolved with a plea-bargain rather than a trial.

    It's all a sham, and 'justice' is entirely illusory unless you're wealthy, educated, and connected enough to game the system. This is one of the (relatively few) places where the tea party and libertarians really have a solid point.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  134. Snowden Deserves Accountability for Doing His Duty by MAColandro · · Score: 1

    Snowden has done his duty as a citizen: to expose the abuses of his country's government. And he should do his duty and receive the consequence of violating his oath: He collected and exposed secrets after agreeing not to do so. He can't have it both ways. Duty is duty.

  135. Presidency by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    Can't think of anything else.

  136. Re:a medal, parade, money and a house not next to by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    all signed all pardon letters signed by Obama live on Cnn

    minute he lands behead him in time square and put his head on a pike next to his entire families heads as a warning to all traitors and. spies everywhere - not joking - hope he enjoys the rest of his life in a back water called Russia who can not even make a decent stealth fighter - he should spied for china at least he could get better living conditions - he , his parents, grand parents are a family of traitors

    The sad thing is, there are some people who wouldn't recognize this as satire.

  137. You've got it backwards by dbIII · · Score: 1

    What you are describing is "might makes right". The rule of law is supposed to be where everyone is equal before it, not just those wealthy, educated, and connected enough to game the system.
    If a lot of people get it so badly mixed up like you that helps explain why US politics is so weird.

  138. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    You might be overstating things a bit.

    Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  139. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    The AC's post is false. Bush never pardoned himself.

    ScentCone's reply is correct.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  140. Two parts to this coin.... by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    The altruistic bits are one thing... but there are plenty of other things that are just sexy bullshit that he should have shut up about. Pointing out transgressions is one thing, but spilling all our secrets was for publicity, and puts our government at risk. Well.. if there is one thing, its time for us to come up with some new tricks.

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  141. If how he was treated were up to me? by Gindjurra · · Score: 1

    Presidential pardon in one hand, Presidential Medal of Freedom in the other, and then appoint him to oversee bringing the NSA back into line with the letter and spirit of the law.

  142. More then a pardon by Dr.+Knowfun · · Score: 1

    So just to add to the Vote:

    A Pardon at least

    Who showed us just how far over the edge we have gone and given us a chance to fight back for our society.

  143. Medal of Honor by Tristfardd · · Score: 1

    He deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor. What he did took courage far beyond that shown by normal mortals. Few life insurance companies, even now, would give him the normal terms for his age.

  144. He's just not that into you by bangkok7548 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand this thinking that the US gets to have some kind of say in Snowden's future. He's just not that into you - USA, take a hint. Who cares what you offer or don't offer, he's broken up with you, with no plans to come back. There are better places to live anyway.

  145. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The buck stops at the top.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  146. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

    Now, how does that help us?

    As an American citizen, it helps me by letting me know what the government thugs are doing in our name. As usual, nothing I'd approve of.

  147. Re:Two part to this by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely no justification for revealing what was going on outside the US when non-citizens are involved.

    Sure there was. As a US citizen, I want to know what my cute little government thugs are doing. I don't approve of spying on allies or innocent people, so I'm happy Snowden gave us the specifics.

    But you government bootlickers would keep everyone in the dark. Why worship the government? Hundreds of millions of people throughout history have died at the hands of various governments; they can't be trusted.

  148. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by anagama · · Score: 1

    Oh right King Bootlicker -- asking a question pertinent to a subject over which one is vested with oversight, is so, so, SO much worse than the felony (*) of committing perjury to Congress.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  149. Re:Are you saying that they are too important to b by anagama · · Score: 1

    Ford's pardon of Nixon was the point where it became blindingly obvious that there are two sets of legal rules -- those for the ruling class, and those for everyone else. It certainly existed prior to that, but since then, the Federal Government can even hide behind a facade of respectability.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  150. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  151. Re:Are you saying that they are too important to b by anagama · · Score: 1

    nots -- that's obviously "can't even hide"

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  152. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  153. For High Treason? by tigersha · · Score: 1

    Snowden is working with the Russians. The leaks are just too precisely targeted to be released by an amateur. The punishment for high treason is the death penalty.

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  154. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by vux984 · · Score: 1

    You'd have to accept that idiots acceptance of the premise that we need prism to be safe in the first place.

    We just don't. The whole NSA apparatus is so far over the line its not funny.

    I am not willing to live in a surveillance state simply to increase our odds slightly of catching terrorists. If a few people have to die at the hands of terrorists so that we can all be truly free. SO BE IT.

    I'm unconvinced the security apparatus can actually save us anyway. So for me, the choice is between living free and dealing with a few terrorist attacks, or living in a surveillance state and STILL dealing with a few terrorist attacks.

  155. Edward Snowdenhands by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    My advice to brave Edward: you already know the ugliness of the machine, so why bargain with the ghost inside?

    The impossibility of a corrupt system according justice to its whistleblowers is a good reason for Edward to remain in Russia. Moreover, he should know, and will know based on poll data, that his sacrifice is scarcely appreciated by our society of sheep, anyway.

    You've done your share. You've paid your price in loss of home and comfort. F--- Washington; construct a life out of all the many rich possibilities that have nothing to do with this declining empire and its sordid leaders.

  156. Re:It might be an unpopular and stupid opinion... by corbettw · · Score: 1

    No, we don't all know that. Because he didn't pursue his crusade using any of the procedures that would grant him that protection. Not even close.

    True, but only because the previous NSA whistleblowers were all silenced and screwed over, too. What's the good of playing by the rules when the powers that be won't do the same?

    Snowden, like other government workers (even contractors), took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. By revealing the depth of the spying done on American citizens by our own government he upheld that oath. Whether he "went through proper channels" is bullshit and academic. He did the right thing and we should give him a ticker tape parade while tar-and-feathering the real traitors, the people who create the surveillance state and those who still support and defend it today.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  157. In Russia... by sergueyz · · Score: 1

    ...we say that "the strictness of laws is alleviated by the optionality of their execution".

    Now I see that it is universal approach.

  158. The same... by aissixtir · · Score: 1

    He deserves as any other officer who reveals a crime. NSA was breaching the Human Rights of the US and Alien citizens.

  159. Re:This might be an unpopular opinion by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    No, it means what the dictionary definition says, and Snowden fits that definition quite well. Perhaps you should explain how his actions don't meet the definition of treason.

    My question is why are you too much of a coward to comment under your screen name?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  160. Re:Whistleblowers to the NY Times not China ... by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

    Whistleblowers go to the press who then informs the public. They do not go to China or Putin's Russia where these countries respective security services can pressure a person to reveal things they might not want to.

    You mean, the members of the press who Snowden, of all people, knew very well were being surveilled directly or indirectly by the people he sought to blow the whistle on?

    Irrelevant, once he informs the press they are free to report it. The NSA can not stop the NY Times from publishing a story on their activity.

    Irrelevant, once his first couple calls to establish contact are accessed by the very people he is wanting to report on, he is arrested and jailed without legal representation under various "homeland security" protections before he can actually meet with the press to release any information.

    --

    Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
  161. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Why do you all keep dumbing down this topic???? I've pointed out now 3 times the distinction between domestic and foreign espionage and you all respond with "well he found bad stuff so it's OK."

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  162. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

    No one cares about your precious distinctions; I don't, at least. What the NSA is doing is wrong. I don't want allies spied on, and I don't want innocent people spied on. Nationalistic pricks who only care about the domestic spying can go to hell.

  163. Holder=Idiot by IndieVoter · · Score: 1

    Huh? Sounds like yet another blunder for the hapless AG. If not for physical attributes, he would have been stuffed in the clown car with Hillary and other x-officials before the last election. BTW, what IS the status of the following criminal investigations so loudly announced? 1. Fast and Furious? 2. Rangles' tax fraud? 3. Bengazi? 4. IRS fraud?

  164. Edward Snowden - Whistle Blower by rkomando · · Score: 1

    Our Founding Fathers were very clear on the rights of American citizens. Edward Snowden did the American people a great service. If this administration held a clear vision of this entire episode they would give Snowden a Full Pardon. Some Americas are very naive when it comes to their personal security and safety. Not only did he expose the NSA for what it is, he helped Americans see that they need to think about protecting their private information.

  165. Re:Polonium by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    The man sold out his government, and I'm guessing whether he comes back or not, we have ways to deal with traitors. Subtle or not so much.

    So I'm guessing from your choice of words, that you're part of that corrupt government, then?
    Sheesh. The training they give shills these days. It's like trying to get competent tech support from a foreign call center. At least make sure they know not to give away their position through a couple of pronouns....

    That's exactly it, though. He sold out his government. Not the country. Not the citizens. Not anybody that actually matters in a "for the people, by the people" kind of country. He sold out a traitorous government to their bosses, the people.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  166. Hang Him High by brunnegd · · Score: 1

    Snowden deserves to be hung by his cojones.

  167. Well, for starters... by Druegan · · Score: 1

    A full pardon.

    Then a medal.. I'm thinking maybe the Presidential Medal of Freedom...

    Then a large statue on the national mall, depicted collectively with other whistleblowers in a monument to those who risked their lives and freedom (and in some cases, lost it) to expose government abuses.

  168. What he Deserves VS What he will Get by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    A pardon? Fuck that. What he deserves is to be the interim leader of the world until we can hold a full plebiscite on how the world should be governed and why all of the so-called rules he broke are meaningless and worthless and not actual crimes for him to be pardoned from.

    What is he going to get as soon as the US coaxes him out of hiding and into their waiting and loving arms? Piano wire and a secret grave. Torture until he reveals the location of the compromised documents which remain. If you think words and promises are enough for the people who want this guy to shut up, you really need to give more thought and examination into who they are, what they are capable of, why they want it.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  169. GIve Him a Job by eyendall5185 · · Score: 1

    The Government should welcome him back and give him the job of NSA Director.

  170. A young courageous US fellow citizen by eric_baudaux · · Score: 1

    Wife, kids, house, car, hardwares, softwares (bank & media), web site and every privacy you can think of were taken away from me after I stated I was working on a 1995 project called: Non partisan active participation Democracy. Today I would rather say: Following representative, from effective to Universal Democracy. It's based on what I call "Localism" which, I believe, eventually inspired the Metagovernment US team. I have been persecuted since 1997 and prosecuted since 2004. My country has obviously been using the NSA techniques or similar to keep track of every single bit of data I would store on any hard drive, reason why I started using PC's I would no longer connect to the Internet. Before the Edward Snowden revelations I realized that the data I was storing on those non-connected PC's, generally related to various law-suits I was having to face, were no longer my own property. Thanks to the revelations, I now have the knowledge that such disgusting practices are effectively being used against activists as well as the technical explanations. Edward Snowden deserves, and not for the selfish little individual I represent, my highest gratitude. I believe he knows about it and, if not, I made sure the country that gave him asylum was properly advised about my feelings regarding such a young courageous US fellow citizen.

  171. medal of honor by samantha · · Score: 1

    He deserves the highest honors and a holiday in his name. I cannot praise this kind of bravery, honesty, doing the right thing no matter the personal cost highly enough. He brought the utterly unAmerican activities of the NSA to public attention. This is most excellent.

  172. What Snowden Deserves by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

    Snowden is a hero and deserves to be paid back monetarily for the damage to his life and reputation. This would happen if our country was not run by a bunch of amoral quasi-criminals.

  173. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Yeah, to hell with facts! Let's just paint the world in crayon!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  174. Re:Revealing the bad isn't doing it, it's curing i by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

    Well, that's a strange reply, considering what I said. Are you unable to comprehend that people can make different moral judgements than you?

  175. Obama's Peace Prize by TheGAGLine · · Score: 1

    Snowden deserves Obama's Peace Prize. /said it twice. Sorry to drone on

  176. Edward Snowden by Rick+Cameron · · Score: 1

    He deserves the Medal of Freedom (the civilian equivalent of the Congressional Medal Honor) and a ticker tape parade down Broadway. He has done this country a great service by exposing the underbelly of a burgeoning police state under the guise of 'protecting us'. And I further believe that Obama, in allowing the NSA spying on ALL of our own citizens, has violated his oath of office: remember when he swore to uphold and protect the Constitution. For this, he deserves to be impeached! The fact that some secret "court" has decided that the NSA spying is legal DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! To quote two great American patriots: Patrick Henry - "Give me liberty of give me death", and Benjamin Franklin, who said "he who would give up liberty for security, deserves neither Liberty nor security"!!!!!!!!

  177. He deserves a commendation by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    A pardon isn't enough. He deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And Chelsea Manning should get the Medal of Honor; she's ex-military so she's eligible for that award.

  178. pardon? not good enough. by vernonB · · Score: 1

    All charges dropped and a Nobel Prize.

  179. it doesn't matter by abramN · · Score: 1

    he should stay the hell out of the United States - they will kill him if he comes back. They'll tell him they won't, of course, but they'll be lying - not an uncommon thing for our government.

  180. Holder makes SNOWDEN an OFFER? by hunzana · · Score: 1

    Eric Holder should get on his damn knees and beg for mercy. He is a moron of monumental proportions, eclipsed only by his boss. He ought to have know that when you throw a guy like Snowden to the wolves, he will most certainly return leading the pack! My offer to Holder would be: "You and your boss take a hike now, and I'll back off some." Without the support of a massively corrupt main stream media, Holder and his boss would already be in jail.

  181. Easy by Nov8tr · · Score: 1

    I would normally make a long statement but this truly is easy. Prosecute for what? Exposing criminals? He doesn't need pardoned. HE DID NOTHING WRONG. It is NOT a crime to expose criminals performing criminal acts. In fact it is your duty according to the Constitution of the United States. DO YOUR JOB PEOPLE. Thanks. :)

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  182. Justice & a perpwalk. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    It won't stop until people see him face justice with at least the same fate as Manning. Given what damage he has done to the US and its ability to defend itself wrt intelligence, he would be getting quite the deal.

    Otherwise he will just become open season. Same goes with any accomplices

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  183. You misspelled traitor. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    While the Rest Of Us point out that Snowden broke the law in ways that cannot be mitigated by the allegations made through unauthorized disclosures.

    To what degree is still up in the air, but at the very least he is no whistleblower - no matter what red meat he dangles in the air to make you think otherwise.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  184. Justice with victory over Snowden still can work. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Even if he's handed over the materials, it would still be no less satisfying to go after Snowden. In addtion, one could also go after the people that received the information and aided in the commision of said crimes.

    Save the pardons for anyone that Snowden targets so that nothing can happen to them. Save the awards for the people that capture Snowden.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  185. Your "Constitutional Blind Spots" harm people. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Suggesting that we should have a Constitutional blind spot for surveillance only leaves room for people to go undetected.

    It's not been a problem for the entire history of the NSA to do what they do until one of their folks becomes disgruntled enough to sell their country out.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.