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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
Some nut-job will.
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.
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.
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.
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
Maybe Obama can give him his, since he's not using it.
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!
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.
that's what.
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
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.
Perhaps they can rescind Obama's and give it to Snowden
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
The trail has already happened. The US government is guilty.
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.
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?
"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.
Mitt? Is that you?
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.
Nothing?
That's not nothing.
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 !
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!
... 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 !
Capricious application of the law is a prime signifier of a corrupt system.
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!
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)
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
and the job as CEO at Microsoft
You evil evil bastard. Have you no compassion in your soul?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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.
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.
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.