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