Slashdot Mirror


Eric Holder Says DoJ Could Strike Deal With Snowden; Current AG Takes Hard Line

cold fjord writes with the report at Yahoo that Former Attorney General Eric Holder said today that a "possibility exists" for the Justice Department to cut a deal with ... Edward Snowden that would allow him to return to the United States ... Holder said "we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures" and that "his actions spurred a necessary debate" that prompted President Obama and Congress to change policies ... "I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists." A representative of current Attorney General Loretta Lynch, though, said that there has been no change in the government's position ("This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed."), Holder's musings aside. As the article points out, too, "any suggestion of leniency toward Snowden would likely run into strong political opposition in Congress as well as fierce resistance from hard-liners in the intelligence community."

194 comments

  1. i say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck holder

    1. Re:i say by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You got that right! He's one of the worst!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:i say by jcr · · Score: 2

      And the asshole who appointed him, not to mention the idiots in the Senate who voted to confirm him.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:i say by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And the voters who elected him, and the constitution that allowed him to be elected, and the founding fathers who should have seen this coming but did nothing to stop it!

  2. What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Especially when the queen of asset forfeiture is in charge. If I was Snowden, I wouldn't take any deal from this administration, because you can't trust them. No honor among thieves, as the saying goes.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eric Holder does have some legitimacy in the "Too Big to Jail" arena, so the idea of not prosecuting isn't completely foreign to him .

      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/eric-holder-returns-law-firm-lobbies-big-banks/

    2. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by rbgnr111 · · Score: 2

      if you base it on what had happened to others who had brought up wrongdoings of the government... odds are he wouldn't get a fair trial, and would be lucky to see life outside of prison if he were to come back.

    3. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Snowden would be crazy to ever return to the U.S. again. Any deal they offered would be rescinded or "modified" the second he was in U.S. custody.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Even if Holder is earnest and really means to get Snowden home safely, he will either be up on some other charge by some other agency (state level? civil?) or a short time from now the administration changes or someone with enough pull gets around Holder's decision or otherwise influences him to change his mind.
      tl/dr; He can never come home.

      --
      Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    5. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Totenglocke · · Score: 0

      Odds are he wouldn't be allowed to live long enough to make it to trial. Many US politicians / military / spy agency leaders have publicly stated that they want him killed for exposing their crimes.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I even wonder what the status of any deal would be over the course of an administration change. Let's say Obama and AG Lynch do a 180 and decide to grant Snowden a deal: Return to the US, sit in on some Oval office and congressional meetings regarding everything that took place, and no charges will be filed. For the sake of argument, let's say Snowden accepts the deal and returns to the US. Now, the 2016 elections take place and new President takes office. How bound would this new President (and his AG) be by the previous President and AG's deal? Could the new President and AG decide "deal's off" and haul Snowden in under a charge of treason? Or would they have to trump up some charge to do this? (Not a big deal for them, I'm sure. It would likely rank as "minor annoyance" versus just saying "the deal is null and void.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. ...

    8. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The president could pardon him, rather than promise not to prosecute. It's well within his power.

    9. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many US politicians / military / spy agency leaders have publicly stated that they want him killed for exposing their crimes.

      Link?

    10. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      He would have to have a pre-agreed guilty charge to something relatively minor, with all other related charges waved, however a government might do that this side of a pardon.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re: What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will take a generation of current politicians and Intel. folk to die off before Snowden should even consider stepping back on US soil.

      Or basically, when both Clinton's pass away, Every Bush member in politics passes away, all the present Joint Chiefs, 90% of todays sitting Congress members, and when current Intel. management and above pass away, then he should consider it. Think 20-30 years. Any time before then, and someone somewhere will want retribution for what he did, and have enough leverage to make it happen.

    12. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Yeah but all those people meant executed, not assassinated. They want to see him pronounced guilty then killed, not the other way around.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    13. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Tipa · · Score: 1

      Return for trial and sentencing, Obama pardons him last day in office.

    14. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's complete bullshit. Snowden is a true patriot, shitty deal is the government being corrupt and him exposing it.. That to me is a patriot. Just because it happens to be anti-government. I'm pretty sure Texas would understand this. Either way Snowden.. don't come back man.. gj and we love ya.. they're crooks here and I agree you wouldn't see the light of day here.. have a drink in a free country and I'll send ya the bitcoins :P

    15. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would just get accidented shortly after arrival.

    16. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be convicted, tried, indicted, or even suspected to receive a presidential pardon. They're kind of like magic. See Ford and Nixon.

      I'm hoping Obama does issue him a pardon. I understand why he can't do it now, but last day? Come on, definitely. Leave office with some dignity Mr. Pres.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    18. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a Presidential pardon?

    19. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are any number of tricks they could pull too, even if they intended to honor the letter of their "deal." They could promise not to charge him with espionage, and then slap the cuffs on him and charge him with "aiding enemies of the U.S." or some other charge. They could detain him indefinitely, delaying his trial again and again. They could say he's mentally ill and put him under some sort of medical detention.

      There are any number of ways they could go back on any deal.

    20. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Title 18, part V, chapter 601 of US code. If he had a real grant of immunity from the Attorney General, there's nothing a future AG could do about it.

      As the AC says, though, the better option is a presidential pardon. Those are magic. Can't do shit, and you don't need to be convicted, tried, indicted, charged, or even suspected to receive one.

      Now, that would only cover things he's already done. If I were Snowden, I would be very wary about ever living in the US again. Obviously get immunity or a pardon so you're not currently a wanted man. But after that...if you get a pardon for everything you've ever done from birth until today, there's nothing stopping the government from scrutinizing everything you do from now until the day you die waiting for you to screw up and nailing you for that.

      "No, no, Mr. Snowden, you're not sitting in prison for that messy NSA business, heavens no, you're pardoned for that and anything you've ever done before July 7th, 2015. This is for having an unpaid parking ticket while in possession of an out of state fish on a Wednesday, in clear violation of penal code 402309 chapter 23 section F, this heinous offense committed on July 8th, 2015.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    21. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama pardons him last day in office

      LOL. Obama *HATES* leakers. He has an even bigger hate-on for leakers than Bush ever did. Shit, this is a President that forced down the presidential plane of the President of Bolivia because he thought Snowden MIGHT be on board. Does that sound like the kind of guy who's just going to up and say "Hey Edward, no harm, no foul--we're all good!"?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    22. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you read the linked article? Those people were openly fantasizing about extrajudicial assassination on the streets of Moscow.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    23. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by davester666 · · Score: 2

      That involves people with lots of money, who also have a bunch of friends with lots of money.

      Snowden has neither, therefore he must face the death penalty.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    24. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardons him? Fuck that, the people running the government are the fucking traitors. They are the ones who should be begging for pardons.

      Edward Snowden is a hero and a true patriot.

    25. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we were talking in the context about making it to trial, which presupposes the US has their hands on him. The only thing better than killing a traitor is the big show trial beforehand.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    26. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not even close to good enough. They would just send him to a random ally who also had information compromised and have him jailed or killer there.

      Snowden's best bet is to completely disappear and watch his back.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What other nations information did he compromise?

      There is no way to guarantee they won't be able to charge him somewhere with something.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      He'd do it now if he wanted to. With everything else he has gotten away with, what is this in the scheme of things.

      The problem is exactly what NotDrWho stated. This president hates whistleblowers (at least that call out stuff done when he was president) with a passion.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    29. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That attitude is precisely why there are so few whistleblowers. They stick their necks out for us, and in return we throw them to the wolves.

    30. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Snowden did many other nations a favor by showing them that they have been spied on and how.

    31. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      What about a Presidential pardon?

      Maybe if we elect Bernie Sanders (or POSSIBLY Rand Paul). He sure isn't getting one from anyone else in the near future.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    32. Re: What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama has shown zero of the positive human qualities that would allow him to ever do something beneficial for the freedom of this country's citizens.

    33. Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He also revealed that their (most cases anyhow) intelligence agencies were in on the spying.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Case of "voce populo" while out of office? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0, Troll

    This strikes me as yet another case of a politician pretending to be a voice of the people while out of office. We already fell for that with Obama.

    Then again, Obama is one of many politicians who said “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” in 2008 but flip-flopped once he saw the winds of change blowing in the opposite direction, so there's hope he could flip-flop on Snowden too before he completes his lame-duck tour.

    1. Re:Case of "voce populo" while out of office? by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or, since Holder has no official position, he's a good way of testing the waters where if the reaction to his statements is not good, they don't have to honor them or even acknowledge them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Case of "voce populo" while out of office? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Suppose the winds change direction, those in charge offer Snowden a deal, and he accepts it. The problem here is that the winds could change again and Snowden could find himself in the US and suddenly a wanted man again. There's also the possibility that he is officially pardoned of any wrongdoing, but unofficially his life is made a living hell - if not simply ended.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Case of "voce populo" while out of office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's living as an expatriate in Putin's Russia, on Putin's sufference. His life is probably already a living hell.

    4. Re:Case of "voce populo" while out of office? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So "listening to the will of the people" is now "flip-flopping"? Would you rather your politicians never change their stance, regardless of new information or social changes which happen in the mean time? It's called learning, and is something you should praise your politicians for doing. Only in America is learning considered a sign of weakness. It explains so much.

  4. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    'As the article points out, too, "any suggestion of leniency toward Snowden would likely run into strong political opposition from the corrupt backroom-dealing lying scum in Congress as well as fierce resistance from hard-liners in the unconstitutional criminal voyeur community."'

    1. Re:FTFY by nealric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that's called a military coup. Usually doesn't turn out well for the country involved.

    2. Re:FTFY by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Admiral of the US Navy should send a battleship up the Potomac River and fire a warning shot across the "bow of Capital Hill" ...

      Fun fact: as of 2006, the US navy doesn't own any battleships anymore. It's all about the carriers, baby! I mean, I guess they could try and lug in a museum boat like the U.S.S. North Carolina, or something...

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:FTFY by Totenglocke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on the situation. If they decide to make themselves the government, definitely not. If they decide to actually honor their oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, then it could turn out quite well. What do you find wrong with them demanding that politicians who violate the Constitution step down or be removed from office? How is that any different from a politician being removed from office for say committing murder or rape? The only "issue" is that it would be most of the politicians going to jail - but again, given how poorly they've run this country for almost a century and how low their approval ratings are, that's not a bad thing either.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The Admiral of the US Navy should send a battleship up the Potomac River

      LOL. Even if anyone had any operational battleships anymore, it would run aground at the mouth of the river. Rivers are shallow and battleships have a very large draft (hull depth).

    5. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wisconsin in Norfolk would be closest.

    6. Re:FTFY by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What do you find wrong with them demanding that politicians who violate the Constitution step down or be removed from office?

      "Them"... Who is "them"? Who is going to make the demand? Is he a lawyer? No, what would be cool is if when the supreme court rules a law unconstitutional, they should also file contempt of court charges against the politicians who passed it, and they should be impeached, then removed from office and made to pay a fine. There you go, all nice and legal like, without firing a shot.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:FTFY by Totenglocke · · Score: 0

      No, what would be cool is if when the supreme court rules a law unconstitutional, they should also file contempt of court charges against the politicians who passed it, and they should be impeached, then removed from office and made to pay a fine. There you go, all nice and legal like, without firing a shot.

      That would be great if SCOTUS wasn't part of the same corrupt system. However, even with your solution, it still involves police / military coming with guns to remove people from office.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:FTFY by nealric · · Score: 1

      Deciding who broke the law and what the punishment should be is not the job of the military. A military coup involving a new election isn't necessarily any better than one where the military just directly takes over. Look at Egypt. Military stepped in because the president "broke the law." Military called a new election, which resulted in an unmitigated disaster of a government.

    9. Re:FTFY by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the military isn't part of the same corrupt system? The nature of and the desire for power has the same effect on them as it does on everybody else. Let's face it, everything depends on the good conscience of the person who has his finger on the trigger. The documents are just a formality.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re: FTFY by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Other fun fact, both the Potomac and the Anacostia are to shallow for a battleship or really anything with any fire power. A small and unloaded destroyer can make it at high-high tide via towing. But then it would have no fuel or armament to actually you know fire.

      The shallow draft is why the Navy Yard in DC never really built ships like the original intention for the yard.

    11. Re:FTFY by chilenexus · · Score: 1

      There's already constitutional processes in place for removing offending parties from the executive and legislative branches. The military getting involved in it is definitely NOT constitutional and reeks of the likelihood of abuse.

    12. Re: FTFY by Talderas · · Score: 3

      The Potomac is 24ft deep at the mouth. The USS Wisconsin, which is the closest battleship to the Potomac, has a draft of 36ft. However it would be worth noting that DC is likely within the firing range of the mark 7 guns of an Iowa battleship located in limited parts of Chesapeake Bay. I'm not sure if those parts of the bay have sufficient depth for the battleship.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    13. Re:FTFY by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      There's already constitutional processes in place for removing offending parties from the executive and legislative branches

      You mean the one where politicians decide if they're going to hold other politicians accountable? Yeah, that works as well as the bullshit that is Internal Affairs where the police decide if they're going to charge themselves with a crime.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    14. Re: FTFY by jmauro · · Score: 1

      It's not in range. The Cheasapeake is a little over a 28 miles from DC from the closest point at Shady Side, MD. Max range of an Iowa class gun battery is 20 miles. The best it could do is shell Largo, MD.

    15. Re:FTFY by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So a Senator's career is dependent on exactly how the Supreme Court rules? Laws are not always clearly constitutional or unconstitutional, and we have the court system to sort that out. I don't want the court system being biased in a decision by which politicians are thrown out of office.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case we have a country ruled by a dictatorship of nine. Nope, requiring the Supreme court to depend on respect for their reasoning is a powerful check on any abuse they (Kennedy) might consider.

    17. Re:FTFY by chilenexus · · Score: 1

      It's adorable that you think that the military isn't soaking in politics as much as congressmen are. All the top brass wine and dine senators and representatives to get more funding for their favorite weapons programs, and they set up deals to get stuff for/from manufacturers as well. This is why we have a continuous assembly line of tanks being made when the army has said they don't need any more and is just putting all the new deliveries into storage. It's a three-way circle jerk where only one of the three has any accountability to the public, and that's tenuous at best.

    18. Re: FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puh-lease. Like they're going to bring real soldiers in, when you can just have some Vegas boys fly drone strikes.

  5. Oh, really? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "his actions spurred a necessary debate" that prompted President Obama and Congress to change policies

    So, which policies did they actually change? And were any of the changes for the better?

    Frankly, I can't think of any off the top of my head....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Oh, really? by digsbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure there are new policies in place that probably deal with people like Snowden extrajudicially.

    2. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pushed through further legislation to further screw over whistleblowers while, unsurprisingly, giving themselves even more power and had the audacity to pretend it was actually a whistleblower protection law. Is that the changes they were talking about? It must be, because that's all there's been.

    3. Re:Oh, really? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      So, which policies did they actually change?

      Maybe just a reminder to *burn the tapes!*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Oh, really? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Didn't they just recently have to alter their data collection policies, because Congress wasn't able to pass the law to extend the current practices? Yes, they're still collecting data, and you might not feel the changes are sufficient, but there have been changes in policy.

      My recollection is that now they're not allowed to collect all of our data and then get a warrant to officially use it. Instead, they have to get a warrant to gather the data from phone companies in the first place. Or something along those lines. Maybe someone else could clarify?

    5. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been some changes. It's just not huge in the eyes of the media. It is stuff that makes IT guys job harder. More hoops to jump through to do something simple.

    6. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh please. This is the United States of America. We're the Good Guys and everyone here is entitled to a Fair and Impartial Conviction.

      Unless you set foot off US soil. Then (post-9/11) you have no citizenship rights anymore.

    7. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that Snowden did was make the public aware of of the highly illegal and unconstitutional actions of the NSA (and others). He is a hero to many Americans, and certainly has done nothing to be charged with. The NSA and the government however want to make an example of him, so that others will not follow his lead and reveal illegal activities that the NSA,CIA, FBI, and the government don't want revealed!

      What the NSA etc... has told the public is one thing, but they will never stop doing illegal and unconstitutional things...they will only try that much harder to keep these things secret! And if I were Eric Snowden, I wouldn't trust the above named agencies or the government any farther than I could throw the Empire State building!! If he ever did come back and not be imprisoned or executed, he would just disappear some dark night...or as the saying goes, the CIA gives great heart attacks.

    8. Re:Oh, really? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm sure there are new policies in place that probably deal with people like Snowden extrajudicially.

      That's nonsense. Terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda or ISIS get killed because we are at war with them. Anyone else is going through the criminal justice system. That is unless you are claiming that Snowden is affiliated with al Qaeda or Isis? Is that your claim? If so, what is the evidence?

      --
      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
    9. Re:Oh, really? by digsbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So Bradley Manning was treated in accordance with existing US laws while being tortured and without access to counsel? Come on. In the information age, the powers that be can't afford more Snowdens. Snowden saw what happened to Manning and knew how previous whistleblowers were treated. It's up to you to prove the government follows the law.

    10. Re:Oh, really? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      We don't even have people who sell loose cigarettes going through the criminal justice system. How naive are you?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:Oh, really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That is unless you are claiming that Snowden is affiliated with al Qaeda or Isis? Is that your claim? If so, what is the evidence?

      Calm your knee, that's not [necessarily] what was meant by that comment. Guess you could read it either way, but I don't think it necessarily has that content. I think the point was that it's easier to attack someone in Snowden's position outside of the courts, because it avoids many uncomfortable questions. Snowden has done a bunch of interviews, people know what he's like. You can't torture him and fill him full of drugs and then put him on the stand like they did with Saddam. Putting him in court would be a horrible idea, they don't ever want to do that. At best they label it 'classified' and nobody trusts them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda or ISIS get killed because we are at war with them.

      I'm not from the US. Was there a formal declaration of war against al Qaeda or ISIS? Wiki says not.

      So, the US is not at war with anybody at the moment.

    13. Re:Oh, really? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's not the only thing Snowden did. He also publicized actions (legal in the US) against other countries. If he'd limited himself to revealing NSA operations in the US, I'd be completely in favor of him.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People get into the "hero" vs. "traitor" camps, but actually he looks like a bit of both.
    Hero for revealing the illegal activities of the NSA and its stooges both inside and outside the USA.
    Traitor for (allegedly) revealing information about agents, assets etc. active in "hostile" countries.

    If he'd kept back the latter, he *might* have had a chance of bargaining his way back into the US, (if he wants to come; discuss).
    Unfortunately, it was probably a requirement of Putin giving him shelter in Russia, despite denials from everybody to the contrary.
    So, can't see this happening anytime soon.

    1. Re:What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Traitor for (allegedly) revealing information about agents, assets etc. active in "hostile" countries.

      That's as alleged as you raping president Putin last night at the cocktail party. I.e. a complete fabrication to make him look bad.

    2. Re:What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny how the "hero" part is backed by now undeniable evidence, while the evidence for the "traitor" part seems to be more hypothetical and imaginary?

    3. Re:What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Traitor for (allegedly) revealing information about agents, assets etc. active in "hostile" countries.

      Never forget, they repealed the anti-propaganda law soon after Snowden went public (gee, I wonder why?). Please don't fall for their obvious bullshit.
      James Bond does not exist. These "agents" do not exist. Not in the way you're lead to believe anyways. The only agents we actually have are those sitting behind diplomatic immunity in an embassy building; they pay locals to feed them information, and that's all. Your spies were never in danger. Or, at least, never more than they were the day before.

    4. Re:What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he'd kept back the latter, he *might* have had a chance of bargaining his way back into the US, (if he wants to come; discuss).

      As long as that is the stance of the government he isn't safe in USA.
      The only way he can come back is if the government admits that NSA was criminally out of bounds and put the people responsible in jail.
      All other actions would be a stance that what Snowden did was wrong and any form of deal to get him back the the states can only be followed with him being punished later in some form or other.
      The government can't both say that what NSA did was business as usual while not severely punishing anyone who interferes with it.
      Any deal they have with Snowden will be worth less than the paper it is written on.

    5. Re:What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3

      Every country with intelligence agencies, including the US, has "illegals" -- that is, spies who do not have diplomatic cover. Valerie Plame is one of the most famous examples, and the operation that pinned down Osama bin Laden's location and cut the power to the neighborhood almost certainly were operating without diplomatic cover.

      Most intelligence agency employees of any country aren't in immediate danger and have mostly office jobs, but there are at least a few doing things that can land them in jail if only by being present in another country using false identification.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  7. Retired is the operative word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now that Holder is no longer in-office he can say what he actually felt as opposed to what the intelligence community demanded.

    1. Re:Retired is the operative word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Eric can always put his money where his mouth is and offer to "defend" Snowden with his new law firm. Firms are always looking for new business!

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/06/former-ag-eric-holder-returns-to-former-d-c-law-firm/

    2. Re:Retired is the operative word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, saying anything that isn't pro-government will be sabotage of any further moves in career, his immediate family, and possibly even his associates.

  8. Triple agent! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    He will come back bearing gifts from the East.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reasonable deal would be for the US government to drop all charges, award Edward Snowden the highest national honours and hire him as a consultant to help them gain useful intelligence without the immoral and illegal practices that were revealed. At the same time, everyone directly responsible for any of the fundamental breaches of human rights committed should be put to trial, as should everyone who had the power to stop it but did not.

    Anything less would be an insult to Edward Snowden and a huge missed opportunity for all victims of data theft by the American government, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

    1. Re:Deal by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the tooth fairy owes me big time!

      ...everyone directly responsible for any of the fundamental breaches of human rights committed should be put to trial, as should everyone who had the power to stop it but did not.

      Whoops! That would be the voters, for constantly reelecting the perpetrators... Oh wait, is somebody going to come and tell me they didn't know?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke's on you, I don't vote!

    3. Re:Deal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Though I disagree, some would consider that as letting others vote for you.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the tooth fairy owes me big time!

      Well, it is is what should happen, not what is going to happen.

      Whoops! That would be the voters, for constantly reelecting the perpetrators... Oh wait, is somebody going to come and tell me they didn't know?

      Seeing as how most of it happened secretly, I think that would be a fair bet.

    5. Re:Deal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The voters permit too much secrecy. They can feign ignorance that way, plausible deniability they can assert.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those people claim that voting for a third party candidate is the same as letting others vote for you.

      Elections are a shame, and democracy in America is a failure. Briefly I thought if I voted in primaries that it would help bring the best leaders to the front and on the ticket. But the inane priorities that other members of my party have ensured that the primary election went down in a devastatingly predictable way.

    7. Re:Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the same time, everyone directly responsible for any of the fundamental breaches of human rights committed should be put to trial, as should everyone who had the power to stop it but did not.

      Hyperbole much? You should go live in a country that do routinely have "fundamental breaches of human rights" (ie Burma, Chad, China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Middle East in general) and then compare your suffering with theirs.

    8. Re:Deal by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The only reasonable deal would be for the US government to drop all charges, award Edward Snowden the highest national honours and hire him as a consultant to help them gain useful intelligence without the immoral and illegal practices that were revealed. At the same time, everyone directly responsible for any of the fundamental breaches of human rights committed should be put to trial, as should everyone who had the power to stop it but did not.

      @@ . . . . yeah, that might happen . . .

      Anything less would be an insult to Edward Snowden ...

      Is he playing the part of the ever humble Julian Assange now?

      --
      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
    9. Re:Deal by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No, go fuck yourself. When it comes to human rights, we shouldn't be treading water, we should setting world records for the best protections for human rights, and aim to make ourselves a decade ago look like filthy savages.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    10. Re:Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to. The US already breaches my human rights regardless of where I live.

      That someone else is doing something worse is never a valid excuse for doing bad things.

    11. Re:Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to privacy is a fundamental human right. It is justifiable for the authority to create a dossier about specific persons of interest in a historical crime or current criminal conspiracy but when the evidence shows no further involvement, the investigation on the specific persons should cease. By collecting all "publicly visible" data on their own citizens by default, the authority are creating a dossier on their own citizens and by implication, treating the citizens as a criminal *before* any crime takes place or *before* any conspiracy to commit a crime. Collecting all this data by default infringes on the citizens' fundamental human right to privacy.

      The fact that these other countries have a more deplorable record of infringing fundamental human rights doesn't improve the injustices of our own government, those other records are a red herring argument to the issue that our own government are spying on us by default.

  10. No shit there would be strong opposition by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Snowden might belong in a prison cell for some of the things he's done but that "hardline opposition" definitely deserves life in prison at minimum for what they've done.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  11. Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I cared what he thought when he was able to effect anything. Now he's just another jerk on the street... like you or me or that guy over there picking his nose.

    So why do I give a flying fuck what he has to say now? Useless.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you think that the people who hold office are the ones with the power, then I have a red and a blue pill for you to choose from.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you think that the people who hold office are the ones with the power, then I have a red and a blue pill for you to choose from.

      And no matter which one you take, you wake up drugged and sore.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Useless.

      Not to the people he works for. And they still have very strong influence over government policy. Don't be so dismissive. He has every bit as much power now as he did as a "civil servant".

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I am not Bill Cosby.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      The president could pardon Snowden in a heartbeat if he wanted to. That the administration takes this tone is because they're told to by the head of it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Holder may be a smart, reasonable man but he is not able to act that way when in a position of "power". He may very well be more influential now in certain ways than he was while in office. We can't know how influential he was with Obama, but clearly we can see that he wasn't very influential as far as Snowden is concerned.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      bullshit.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Okay... you seem to know all about it... guess we'll just have to take your word... for what is :-)

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I just don't think his opinions are newsworthy anymore.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ... for what it is!

      Peace!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They are very newsworthy. Now we get to find out where he disagrees with the administration and how influential he really was. He clearly disagrees strongly with the President on this issue and this will put pressure on him. He did not wait long to "step out of line".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And furthermore... I call bullshit on your bullshit!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      hey, hey, hey! watch it, there!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Okay... you seem to know all about it... guess we'll just have to take your word... for what is :-)

      Or we could think and reason. Attorney General is a far more powerful position than whatever lawyer job he's doing now. And really, I think he's just carrying water for the administration here.

    15. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      His influence as a lobbyist is every bit as powerful, provided of course, it pays off! Everybody here is wagging the dog. The DOJ serves Covington & Burling and various other firms. Holder was "juiced in", in response to all the 'support' given to the party. The FCC and SEC are under the same kind of influence. In fact it's difficult to pin down any department that isn't. Since none of this is interrupting dinner, I figure it's not a thing, man...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      sure... he got a puff piece in "national law journal"... clearly he's the next emperor of the galaxy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You are intentionally evading the nature of the business they are in, and choose to underestimate/wave off the influence that particular company has over the DOJ. I don't know what your angle is, but it appears to give you meaning, and maybe an income...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      His influence as a lobbyist is every bit as powerful

      Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it.

    19. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You don't have to. Events speak for themselves...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You don't have to. Events speak for themselves...

      There are no such events.

    21. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say :-)

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No no, you're right... he got a puff piece in the national law journal... so really he's even more powerful than if were the AG even though no one knows about the other lawyers that get those puff pieces written about them because when push comes to shove it doesn't matter.

      You want to prove me wrong? Show me any kind of track record of these guys saying SOMEONE is relevant and then that being backed up by them being able to do something.

      And government officials don't count. They have to be relevant as private citizens. If they say some guy is relevant and then he becomes president or something then you're unwittingly arguing my case.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    23. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 0

      Seriously, why are you still posting? It's nonsense to claim that being a moderately well-connected lawyer in a lobbyist firm is somehow more influential than heading the Department of Justice (including among other things, six law enforcement agencies!).

    24. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You are intentionally evading the nature of the business they are in, and choose to underestimate/wave off the influence that particular company has over the DOJ.

      I think that's a good call. You know who has a lot more influence over the DOJ than a lobbyist? The Attorney General.

    25. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      With you there is no proving anything. You have no 'case'. You're just trolling and are only good for a cheap laugh.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, since he serves the lobbyist, the point is moot!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's nonsense to claim that being a moderately well-connected lawyer in a lobbyist firm is somehow more influential than heading the Department of Justice...

      Sure, if you choose to ignore the sociopathic desire for wealth/power and the kind of people these positions draw. You are just illustrating the power of faith..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're right... someone that loses their position in high government office actually gets more powerful.

      Everyone knows that.

      Can you please fuck off... you're wasting my time with your idiocy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    29. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Can you please fuck off... you're wasting my time with your idiocy.

      :-) This is why I love ya, babe. You are always free to ignore the posts, but as long as you keep giving up the money shot to flamboyantly expose your ignorance and foolish pride, how can I resist?! One thing about the faithful like you is that you are so much fun to watch, like you have your own little clown car to show off. THX

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    30. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      What ignorance did I display? Is it ignorant to point out that an AG has more power than someone that isn't AG?

      Seems you think you win if I call you a fucktard? Like... as if someone points out you're an idiot... you win?

      I look forward to the future when your kind of stupid is engineered out of the gene pool.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    31. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Seems you think you win if I call you a fucktard? Like... as if someone points out you're an idiot... you win?

      Only when you do, babe. You're the most utt! As low as I can go, I know you are there looking up to me!

      Is it ignorant to point out that an AG has more power than someone that isn't AG?

      Yes.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    32. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      as to your presumptions of superiority... since those are apparently based on little more than your personal shame... I'm going to just laugh at that comment and move on.

      As to your evidence that I'm ignorant... *laughs*... Sure sure... 1+1=5... whatever you say.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    33. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Here, I'll put in a way you might, maybe, possibly understand:

      The power of the position is irrelevant if the person holding is weak and corrupt and merely serves financial interests that control the pliticians, as this one most blatantly did.

      You may now return to your regularly scheduled fantasy.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    34. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You are very useful, and shall be rewarded. Jolly good show! Keep the faith, babe!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    35. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, since he serves the lobbyist

      Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it. I'm not willing to merely assume that there are "events". Where's your evidence?

    36. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you choose to ignore the sociopathic desire for wealth/power and the kind of people these positions draw.

      So what? Merely having sociopathic desire for wealth and power, which really is normal behavior for anyone who actually can achieve wealth and power, doesn't imply that one is running the Department of Justice.

      You are just illustrating the power of faith..

      Says the person who has yet to provide even a shred of evidence in support of their assertions. Here's my reasoning, we are comparing a person actually running the Department of Justice, with full control of day to day activities (including the FBI which is the largest and most powerful federal-level law enforcement organization) and considerable power both as themselves and as an officer who reports directly to the US President, who has access to a variety of top secret info, and a very considerable staff, is somehow less influential than their reincarnation as yet another lobbyist, admittedly one who probably has some manpower for making copies and keeping the schedule straight with a great travel and entertainment budget? I don't buy it.

    37. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Where's your evidence?

      In the newspapers... I really don't care what you believe. I will not argue with the faithful.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    38. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it.

      Thus proving just how "useful" you are. I don't care if you "buy it" or not. What you have bought is why we are where we are. If you profit from it, I will not blame you. If not, well, you deal with it, I'll sit back and watch. You obviously can't follow a regular flow chart.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    39. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      In the newspapers... I really don't care what you believe. I will not argue with the faithful.

      Once again, no evidence is provided for your assertions, including the new but empty assertion that I am part of "the faithful". Just in this thread, I counted 17 such condescending yet empty replies. Don't you have something better to do with your time?

    40. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The evidence is in the papers! And in government policy! Trying reading them sometimes. But like I said I do not care what you believe... If you refuse to see what's in front of you, that is not my problem. If the fantasy gives you comfort, then who am I to say otherwise? So, carry on... Pick the lies you prefer to believe and run with them. That is what invariably happens. You have no need to waste your time defending yourself with me. All I'm getting here is the *Official Narrative*/public relations fluff anyway.

      BTW Snowden will come back if he has something to bring with him. As a matter of fact we really don't know where or who or what he is, do we? There's just enough plausibility to the whole story to keep us titillated. As always, the reaction is much more interesting than the story itself. A perfect illustration of how little people have learned from the past. That would have to include you with the kind of response I am getting. Eh, all I can do is write it off as someone that prefers to live in denial. Banging my head into the wall over it is not my cup of tea.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    41. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you refuse to see what's in front of you

      What's in front of me? This sounds like another pointless evangelist Christian sell. I disagree only because I'm ignoring God's voice or something.

    42. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry, man. You prefer to believe a guy who would stand on the beach, and tell the crowd that because of the drought, water must be rationed, and you would be there all nodding approvingly and applauding. Anybody mentions desalinate or recycle, and he'll be shouted down as a simplistic lunatic. What is it about the Official Narrative that is so compelling?? I just don't get it*... If anybody is evangelizing, it is you. Are you so unaware of precedence and history (all 6000 years of it)? How do you not see how corrupt officials answer to the money that puts them in the position they hold? Yes, the position may be more powerful, but it is under the 'leadership' of weak men/women for a reason. So the real power resides elsewhere and the office serves as its hammer. It is really, truly more obvious than the wetness of liquid water. Something apparently you choose not to recognize. The reasons being too offtopic for this thread.

      *Not true... The Animal Planet explained it all.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    43. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You prefer to believe a guy who would stand on the beach, and tell the crowd that because of the drought, water must be rationed, and you would be there all nodding approvingly and applauding. Anybody mentions desalinate or recycle, and he'll be shouted down as a simplistic lunatic

      Note that you have yet to indicate that my hypothetical stance is wrong. If desalination and recycling of water is indeed so bad and realistic options for this situation (which let me remind you is highly dependent on pre-condtions that you have failed to say a thing about) that anyone who does propose them is a genuine simplistic lunatic, then I would in the right. So I could be wrong or right, but one can't tell from the simplistic and contrived scenario you set up.

      Are you so unaware of precedence and history (all 6000 years of it)?

      Of course not. And I would point out that analogous positions to the US Attorney General (such as a head of secret police or a national level law officer) have usually had considerable power while that of courtiers did not. The former could put you to death while the latter merely had opportunity for personal or familial profit.

      Yes, the position may be more powerful, but it is under the 'leadership' of weak men/women for a reason.

      Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?

    44. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      but one can't tell from the simplistic and contrived scenario you set up.

      Ah, thank you! I always did love people who cop out with the 'simplistic' angle. So typical of those without a counterpoint. The only blockage there is is the will.

      Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?

      Holder had no choice but to act in the interests his lobbyists. He was given the job specifically to serve them. Quite simply that is the agreement. And they held his regular position back at the firm for his return. That job would not have been there if he didn't comply with their wishes during his term in office. His weakness is in the area of public interest. His weakness is in character. He acted dishonorably. He is corrupt, along with the people that appointed him(officially), and the voters who elected them. Ultimately, every single facet of the government, regardless of the money and corporation lobbyists and whatnot, comes back to the voters (and I include you) who choose to believe lies, based on the source. It is nothing but an appeal to authority, in search of preferential treatment, even amongst your peers(we all remember what peer pressure is, don't we?). That is what you are doing, and reasonable argument is utterly impotent against that. You dismiss them out of hand as 'simplistic'. How quaint this 19th Century...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    45. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ah, thank you! I always did love people who cop out with the 'simplistic' angle.

      The thing is, that works here. Your argument up to a couple posts ago was that the people that you maybe disagreed with had opposing viewpoints merely because of a variety of mental biases and failures while continuing to not provide evidence or reasoning for your opinions. At least, we've gotten past that point.

      Now you are comparing the thread to a dispute about desalinization where we are attempting, very hypothetically, to shout down dissent for practical alternatives to the Way We've Always Done This. I've seen that movie and it just doesn't apply. And the overly simplistic reasoning you present is part of the problem.

      Why do you think Holder was weak as US Attorney General and not weak as yet another lobbyist?

      Holder had no choice but to act in the interests his lobbyists.

      He still operates under that restriction! He lobbies for his clients. And he doesn't have even a remote portion of the power and visibility he used to have as the US's top federal level law enforcement official. This whole argument of yours just doesn't make sense.

    46. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And he doesn't have even a remote portion of the power and visibility he used to have as the US's top federal level law enforcement official.

      Yes, he and the company still have powerful influence over the department. Why would you think they don't? The new person is no different, just another paid actor.

      Bah, Like I said, yours is an appeal to authority. You choose to believe lies. There is no way to argue. You win the internets

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    47. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, he and the company still have powerful influence over the department.

      Again, I disagree. Here, the problem is that there are lots of lobbyist organizations and only one Department of Justice. The lobbyists routinely work at cross purposes because their clients have conflicting goals and strategies. That dilutes their power. The head of the DoJ doesn't have that dilution of power.

      Why would you think they don't? The new person is no different, just another paid actor.

      Even so, you are claiming that a powerful federal level office is weaker than one of many lobbying positions. It simply is not true. The lobbyist doesn't have day-to-day control of the DoJ. They don't have a huge labor force at their beck and call. They don't have routine face-to-face with the President. They don't have its huge budget.

      And look at the story. The only reason Holder gets face time for saying something is because he used to be the Attorney General. If he were just another influential lobbyist, he wouldn't get the time of day.

    48. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The head of the DoJ doesn't have that dilution of power.

      The DOJ is where the diluted power concentrates, through their selected agreed upon puppet, in the same fashion that investment bankers own the SEC and the comm giants own the FCC, Pfizer, etc with the FDA... You simply refuse to acknowledge facts. I fully understand your position. You need to believe what you do. It's okay, it's your security blanket...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    49. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The DOJ is where the diluted power concentrates, through their selected agreed upon puppet

      You are claiming much more than that. You are claiming that one of many supposed puppet masters is greater than a puppet with very considerable power. I don't buy it and I've already explained why.

      Let's try this analogy. The US President is elected by the US populace. In a more tangible way than above, the US President is the puppet of the electorate (we have very concrete means by which the electorate controls who is president). But that doesn't make them less powerful than an average voter.

      And frankly, I wouldn't agree with the claim that the Attorney General is less powerful than the supposed puppet masters. The AG's power is a lot more concrete and doesn't depend on having money, which can be taken, or connections, which can be severed.

      You simply refuse to acknowledge facts. I fully understand your position. You need to believe what you do. It's okay, it's your security blanket...

      Once again, it's amazing the level of projection that shows up in Slashdot discussions. You've just spent the last twenty or so posts in this thread insulting people and making mostly vacuous and empty assertions, now I get accused of being the one who "simply" (that simplistic reasoning yet again) refuses to acknowledge facts which are not facts. It's not my belief system which is on full display here.

    50. Re:Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      you win, again...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. "Mr Snowden, please come closer, need clear shot" by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Mkay, the current regime operating since the 50's in the US is not at all pissed off that they are "in a different place" now are they? Snowden, you have to realize they haven't been playing it straight so long in this country, they wouldn't know how to play it straight even if their financial circumstances allowed for it. If you come back here they will hang you while blaming you for the financial collapse.

  13. hard-liners in the intelligence community? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Those bastards need to be sent to prison.

    1. Re:hard-liners in the intelligence community? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      After all the backstabbing and being thrown under the bus, who would want to be a member of that community?! You get fucked by all sides.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  14. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is zero chance of finding a solution that satisfies everyone.

    1. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need for that. The only solution that matters is the one that satisfies the Lord President, His Most Glorious Majesty Barack Hussein Obama III, by whose will the Sun His brother rises every morning and by whose command it sets every evening so that He may sleep while His sister the Moon holds vigil over His sacred sleep.

  15. Yeah... by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    like anyone is going to trust that deal....

  16. In 18 Months, Freedom Day Arrives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden and Assange only have to hold out for 18 more months until January 22, 2016 arrives. That is the day after Obama leaves the DC Federal Government and the exodus of Obama's Rednecks from the sprawling Federal bureaucracy.

    What a Wining Day that will be.

    Ha ha

    1. Re:In 18 Months, Freedom Day Arrives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Ted Cruz enters office and orders drone strikes on Snowden.

      And it won't matter to Cruz if he starts WWIII for firing on Russian soil either, the man is ham-fisted in everything he does.

  17. Despite The Need by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Informative

    Obviously we need intelligence agencies as part of our national defense. But our agencies have become too dangerous to allow them to continue to exist. Maybe it is time to shut down the CIA, NSA and FBI completely and start new agencies that are required to follow much stricter and very public oversight. Our laws have become so complex that often the motive for a law is hidden while some other need for the law gets it promoted into place. A simple example is when law enforcement becomes a tax collector instead of a law enforcement agency. In many places the police force simply exists to rake in fines for the town or county. Traffic laws should be about public safety and not about raising money. Another example : You get into a shouting match with your partner. The cops come and arrest one or both of you for the loud argument. The judge fines you and orders marriage counseling weekly for two years at the public clinic at $75. per week for you and another $75. per week for your wife. Then he also fines each of you $500. for the police being involved. So you have $1000 in fines as well as $150 a week times 104 weeks for the counseling which all flows back to the county's bank account. This type of thing is happening commonly in our legal system.

    1. Re:Despite The Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you're aware, the real Intelligence Agencies? They stay so far out of the spotlight that most people have never heard of them. The US has 17. They are the: Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI), Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I & A), Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI), Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA), Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The reach of some of the lesser known agencies is astounding. The NRO, for example, recently donated two never-been-used better-than-Hubble space telescopes to NASA because they were obsolete for their purposes. See here: http://www.space.com/16145-nas...

      If they can donate these, what does that say for the telescopes they have in orbit and pointed down at Earth?

    2. Re:Despite The Need by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is time to shut down the CIA, NSA and FBI completely and start new agencies that are required to follow much stricter and very public oversight.

      That sounds like a bad idea to me. Sort of like saying, "I feel like my operating system has become bloated, so let's build a new one from scratch." Sure it sounds great, and you might solve some of your problems, but you're going to have to re-solve a lot of the same old problems, and you'll also introduce more new problems.

      So you have $1000 in fines as well as $150 a week times 104 weeks for the counseling which all flows back to the county's bank account. This type of thing is happening commonly in our legal system.

      I agree that this is a huge problem.

    3. Re: Despite The Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we really? They have a long history of creating more problems than they solve. Given that all of our military enemies were made by them perhaps just eating Gilligan would be the better option.

    4. Re: Despite The Need by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1, Funny

      NGA? The mapmakers? You can't seriously want to reform the agency whose only recent notible point of excess is having a really nice atrium! They even share satellite images with Google Earth!

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    5. Re:Despite The Need by dargaud · · Score: 1

      17 ? More lige 1,271 different secret gov agencies. Why are there so fucking many ?!?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    6. Re:Despite The Need by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is time to shut down the CIA, NSA and FBI completely

      The president felt it was time in the early 60's; we can see how well that went.

    7. Re:Despite The Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you? Really? Who are you protecting yourself from? The boogie man I think.

      Frankly, I would disband every last 3 letter agency. To hell with security, I'll take freedom over security anyday of the week, even if it meant 10 9/11's.

    8. Re:Despite The Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously we need intelligence agencies as part of our national defense.

      Why, precisely? If we are a nation as fair, transparent, and above board as has historically been portrayed, what reason have we for spies?

      But our agencies have become too dangerous to allow them to continue to exist. Maybe it is time to shut down the CIA, NSA and FBI completely and start new agencies that are required to follow much stricter and very public oversight.

      And whom do you think would staff these new agencies - who'd have the experience necessary? Oh, the same people as before... This is about on par with the notion of de-Baathification of Iraq. A beautiful idea which would lead to even worse consequences.

      Our laws have become so complex that often the motive for a law is hidden while some other need for the law gets it promoted into place. A simple example is when law enforcement becomes a tax collector instead of a law enforcement agency. In many places the police force simply exists to rake in fines for the town or county. Traffic laws should be about public safety and not about raising money. Another example : You get into a shouting match with your partner. The cops come and arrest one or both of you for the loud argument. The judge fines you and orders marriage counseling weekly for two years at the public clinic at $75. per week for you and another $75. per week for your wife. Then he also fines each of you $500. for the police being involved. So you have $1000 in fines as well as $150 a week times 104 weeks for the counseling which all flows back to the county's bank account. This type of thing is happening commonly in our legal system.

      So the couple arguing should... be jailed? Set free to assault each other and/or continue to keep the neighbors irritated at 1 AM?

      May I suggest that instead of tearing down the departments, we instead elect new overseers who will utilize their authority to actually control the agencies involved?

    9. Re:Despite The Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A simple example is when law enforcement becomes a tax collector instead of a law enforcement agency. In many places the police force simply exists to rake in fines for the town or county. Traffic laws should be about public safety and not about raising money.

      This is already covered by rights arising under the 9th Amendment. The problem is getting the legal profession to acknowledge it.

      Certainly, any list of rights one comes up with for asserting under the 9th Amendment would include the two big ones: the right to ethical government, and the right to ethical practice of law, with even the appearance of conflict of interest being prohibited if alternatives exist.

      For governments at any level to put the money from fines into their budget creates a prima facie ethical conflict of interest on both the part of the judges, and other persons in the government, hence a violation of both rights. Everybody with a functioning brain in the legal profession understands that.

      The situation with respect to legal ethics today and many aspect of law, is much like the situation in the South during the "Jim Crow" era, where everybody with a functioning brain in the legal profession understood that the laws violated fundamental rights protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments (unspecified rights retained by the people, unspecified rights reserved to the people, giving the people the final say in their government under the highest law in the land).

      The problem is getting something done about the ethics issue. The legal profession is terrified that public in general are going to start remembering the 9th Amendment exists, because so much of the practice of law depends upon a status quo that is riddled with ethics problems (a point that seems to come up a lot on Slashdot). This is likely a big part of why it took a massive Civil Rights movement to get the Jim Crow era ended: nobody in the legal profession wanted to rock the ethics boat, even though they certainly knew that what was going on was unethical and illegal (not to mention incredibly stupid!). When Rosa Parks got on that bus, her actions were protected by the 9th Amendment, and to this day the US legal profession has stuck its head in the sand and refused to acknowledge that fundamental truth, in clear violation of the oaths all legal professionals swear.

      We can even go back further in US history and see this kind of problem. Consider the following quote by Morris at the US Constitutional Convention: "The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S.C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. and N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.". From this quote, it is perfectly clear that people understood they were creating a government for the protection of the rights of mankind, and once again the legal profession refused to do the ethical thing, and slavery (not at all consistent with such government, entirely aside from the moral issues) would be allowed to continue.

      One can not help but conclude that the US legal profession has a very poor ethics track record. Given that a clear defense for Snowdon's actions also arises under the 9th Amendment, this is a bad thing for him.

  18. They're only pretending to have changed anything by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    because of Snowden. They didn't stop collecting bulk data, they just changed the legal ownership of that data which has no effect on anyone's rights. It's all technical changes.

    Also, if I were Snowden I'd consider staying away no matter what he's offered. Corrupt Russian intelligence doesn't have the MOTIVE to off him that American leaders do.

  19. Right - taking away our rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here you go - rewrite the constitution and bill of rights - it's real easy.
    You have the right to pay taxes.
    Everything else is rescinded.
    Welcome to the new America.

  20. Does it matter what the Current admin says ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after al they are only idiots.

  21. who cares? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

    "any suggestion of leniency toward Snowden would likely run into strong political opposition in Congress as well as fierce resistance from hard-liners in the intelligence community."

    Political opposition in Congress is relevant. Fierce resistance from the "intelligence community" is irrelevant; government employees may advise Congress and the president, but they have no business "resisting" political decisions.

    1. Re:who cares? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      That was my thought too. Its like when the police start pontificating, its like 'Dont you work for us, arent we supposed to be telling you what the deal is?'

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:who cares? by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      'but they have no business "resisting" political decisions'

      They do have means, motive, and opportunity.

    3. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "any suggestion of leniency toward Snowden would likely run into strong political opposition in Congress as well as fierce resistance from hard-liners in the intelligence community."

      Political opposition in Congress is relevant. Fierce resistance from the "intelligence community" is irrelevant; government employees may advise Congress and the president, but they have no business "resisting" political decisions.

      That being the case, then Congress and the president shouldn't listen to "Crypto Experts Blast Gov't Backdoors For Encryption" either because they're, in your own words, "irrelevant".

      Mod parent down as -1, idiotic.

  22. Hard line by tchdab1 · · Score: 2

    No matter the sincerity, or lack of it, from the "current administration" or any previous one, when negotiations are on-going with an entity that believes it holds all the cards (yet needs finds itself 'negotiating'), it will demand no concessions and maintain a hard line while implying that some kind of compromise is possible. Germany and Greece.

  23. No deal without a Presidential Pardon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden would be foolish otherwise.

  24. Why the hell would he return? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Why should he return? Let's even assume for the moment and for shits and giggles that the government would be honest for a change with its promises and even grant him full amnesty. Would you wanna come to a country where the media and even some of its officials spent the better part of the last decade telling every redneck that it would be a blessing for 'murrica if you were killed, preferably painfully? Where you can't even really rely on police and other legal forces to defend you if you were attacked by said rednecks?

    That whole deal smells a bit like the GDR offering its fugitives to come back with no jail time waiting for them. A few were stupid enough to go. No, they were not jailed. But their life was made miserable as can be, from no job opportunities being offered to people not wanting to associate with them, fearing the same. And if you say that it cannot happen in the US, think McCarthy and his Commie list.

    Or think of companies wanting government contracts, knowing that you're persona non grata.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Why the hell would he return? by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Wait, sorry, what? I realize it feels like forever ago, but quick Googling says 25 months. Or did I misunderstand you?

      Before anyone comments on my source, it was the first timeline I saw, get over it :)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    2. Re:Why the hell would he return? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's the part that bothers you? Really?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Why the hell would he return? by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Haha, fair point :)

      I didn't specifically disagree with any of the rest of what you said ... he can never return, regardless of any assurances the govt. may give him.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  25. Re:They're only pretending to have changed anythin by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    They didn't stop collecting bulk data, they just changed the legal ownership of that data which has no effect on anyone's rights.

    The data is phone bills. I'm pretty sure the phone companies already owned them. The change is that the intelligence agencies won't get a copy of them but instead will have to go through a process to get them.

    --
    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
  26. Intelligence community? by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 1

    fierce resistance from hard-liners in the intelligence community

    Meaning, a hateful violent response from people whose sense of power is threatened by the truth.

    --
    "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
    - Deep Thought
  27. Time Served by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if he could make a case for time served in Russia as part of his prison sentence?

    I mean Russian Exile isn't prison, but it's no cake walk either I don't doubt.

    Perhaps a way to save face. Sit in Russia awhile, come back to the US, get "convicted" of something like the inappropriate use of government IT assets with the equivalent of a NDA...

  28. Admiral Ackbar say -- "It's a trap!" by Morpeth · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING from Holden, this (or probably) any administration. Snowden publicly and undeniably exposed, humiliated and embarrassed (rightfully so) the US govt -- there's no way in h-ll this would end well for him.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
  29. Until the US is a free country again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the US is a free country again...Run Snowden Run.

    1. Re:Until the US is a free country again... by stackOVFL · · Score: 1
      Yup. And if you get a letter from anyone in the USA saying you've won anything and all you have to do is come on over and claim it - don't. That's a trap too.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  30. Rand Paul Pardon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rand Paul should come out and pledge a full pardon for Snowden if he is elected.

  31. Re:They're only pretending to have changed anythin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the US government never did anything against the people.

    Haven't seen you around for a while, now I see you posting replies to every other damned posting here. Got new orders, huh?

  32. Re:They're only pretending to have changed anythin by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The real significance of that is that the NSA isn't allowed to data-mine without limit. I'm fine with having a formal process to get small numbers of records at a time.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Hardliners in the Intelligence Community by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    The IC is comprised almost entirely of hard liners, and they hate Snowden. Vehemently. He's viewed as a traitor, like a family member airing dirty laundry in public. They will cite potential or actual damage as a rationale for why his actions were wrong, and they probably believe that, but it doesn't matter to them whether those are outweighed by the public's need to know. Indeed, they're paid not to think about the public's need to know at all. The real sin is that he broke ranks and made them look bad, and that's why they hate him (because they are good people, don't you know*.)

    Personally, I think the public's need-to-know was paramount, but I recognize that his actions were illegal and I think he could and should have used other avenues to raise his concerns, both for his own personal well being, and to better legitimize the disclosure. Assuming that he actually tried to raise his concerns with his superiors first, which is dubious, he could have kept going up the chain, presented information to sympathetic and cleared elected officials, filed a FOIA request, filed a lawsuit, etc. Instead, he went rogue.

    On the one hand, I'm glad that the information is public, and I believe that the information becoming public was important, but on the other hand, I feel that the way it happened gave opponents too much ammunition to label him (correctly, in a literal sense) as a criminal. It's like Malcolm X vs MLK. Civil rights was important -- probably the most important domestic issue of the 20th century -- but working within the framework of the law was both more noble and more effective. Malcolm X may be a folk hero, but MLK brought about real change.

    * Actually, many of them are good people, but they're in the weeds, focused on what is a relatively small picture. Like most of us, they don't spend a lot of time balancing mission success against external societal needs. That's not their job, and it shouldn't be. It's strictly a leadership problem.

  34. don't come back! by abramN · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Snowden, don't come back to the US - we do want you here, but only to enslave you.