Slashdot Mirror
Two Years Later, White House Responds To 'Pardon Edward Snowden' Petition
An anonymous reader writes: In June of 2013, a petition was posted to Whitehouse.gov demanding that Edward Snowden receive a full pardon for his leaks about the NSA and U.S. surveillance practices. The petition swiftly passed 100,000 signatures — the point at which the White House said it would officially respond to such petitions. For two years, the administration was silent, but now they've finally responded. In short: No, Edward Snowden won't be receiving a pardon.
Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said, "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said, "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
Let us kill you.
Alrighty then, will John Corzine receive an indictment? I think we all know the answer.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
He embarrassed us and we want to punish him so nobody else tries to do this in the future.
The government is running away from the consequences of their actions
When people like Keith Alexander and James R Clapper can get away with lying before congress, before the courts, there is a problem.
"We don't do pardons", followed by an appeal to patriotism (ie. if you don't agree with our decisions then you're a pinko commie)
Film at 11.
No sig today...
My e-mail response this morning from info@mail.whitehouse.gov regarding the Snowden pardon petition: "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address."
You mean in addition to the unlawful ones?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
...is Snowden's only hope is he returns to face the music.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I received the email about whitehouse.gov's response and, to my mind, Monaco's statement doesn't veer one degree from goal of punishing Snowden as an warning to others, rather than protecting him as a whistleblower.
When Monaco and the rest of the Whitehouse talk about "hid[ing] behind the cover of an authoritarian regime" they all should look in the mirror.
blog
Did Snowden do something that needed to be done? Yes. Did he essentially end his own life in the process? Yes. Does anyone actually believe that he thought there would be any other outcome from his actions, or that he wouldn't have a price on his head for the rest of his life? Not if you have at least two working brain cells, you don't. You could have had a hundred million signatures on that petition, and it wouldn't matter, because pardoning him would set a dangerous precedent, essentially declaring open season on any and all State secrets that anyone with access thought should be revealed. You can't even blame Obama for any of this in this case; any head of any government would say 'no' for the same reasons.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Edward Snowden has done more for the public good than Lisa Monaco ever has. In her mind, Ed is already guilty and should come home to be railroaded and disappeared by the government's security apparatus. Of course, I don't know how she expect him to come home with a revoked passport.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Lisa Monaco is a cluleless moron.
>> "he should ... Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and â" importantly â" accept the consequences of his actions"
Read: he should point out our faults then just let us take whatever revenge we feel like.
She is a total moron. How do such people ever get such responsible jobs?
Give him the Peace Prize and lets see if we would jail a Nobel Laureate
"Challenge it, " He did.
"Speak out," He did.
"Engage in a constructive act of protest," He engaged in protest, by whistleblowing, but I guess it doesn't count due to their qualification of "constructive", just like our president's explanation that he's not opposed to wars, just "dumb wars".
"and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions." Isn't whistle blowing legally protected from retaliation?
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Better to hide in an authoritarian regime that will protect you than be prosecuted in an authoritarian regime that betrayed you.
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
When has a petition that garnered enough signtures not been met with the response: "Fuck you, we're not going to change"?
The United States and the Obama administration are the ones that suffer from having an American claim Asylum in Russia. Right now, Russia benefits from the situation more than anyone else. Snowden himself suffers minor inconveniences relating mainly to lifestyle and the ability to see friends and family.
A Snowden Pardon will not in any way encourage people to do what he did. He did what he did out of patriotism - though some may consider it misguided. Martyrs - whether they are heros or villains - do not concern themselves with such minor punishments.
Such a pardon would benefit everyone except Russia. Russia would lose a major political/moral chip (Look we protect an American from the evil USA - wait a second, where did he go?).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
its not unlawful if the president does it.
Snowden has actually said he would go before a jury of peers, in an open trial. The problem is that he faces a military trial, behind closed doors, with no actual representation. So this public statement really is a huge farce.
He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
By that logic George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld should go to Iraq and Afghanistan to be judged for war crimes and stop hiding behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Closed Guantanamo Bay yet? Yeah didn't think so. "Running away"? Sounds like the smart course of action when the chances of him getting a fair trial seem to be nil.
To me, this serves as further evidence that there's enough difference between the Demopublican and Republicratic wings of the Party to bother voting for either one.
It leaves my ballot mostly blank, though.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
If, say, you say that Russia is an authoritarian regime, you don’t need evidence. If you say that the US is an authoritarian regime, you need plenty. Here, that is. In Russia it’s reversed.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
You could have had a hundred million signatures on that petition, and it wouldn't matter, because pardoning him would set a dangerous precedent, essentially declaring open season on any and all State secrets that anyone with access thought should be revealed. You can't even blame Obama for any of this in this case; any head of any government would say 'no' for the same reasons.
I absolutely can blame Obama and Bush. The government was breaking the law and violating the constitutional rights of its citizens. I'm not surprised at the response but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. Remember this is the same government that has recently used torture, held people without charge or trial, invaded two countries, spied on its own citizens, put digital strip search machines in airports, and on and on.
And it wouldn't set a "dangerous precedent" because this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The only dangerous precedent is if we don't hold the government accountable.
Instead, he indiscriminately handed sensitive national secrets over to a foreigner,
Glenn Greenwald is a "foreigner"? Since when?
So maybe Snowdon should run for office in absentia. How does "congressman Snowdon" sound?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
To clarify this the phone metadata was not declared unconstitutional, but illegal. There is a difference between the two. Furthermore the court deferred judgement based on the actions of congress who where debating reform to the patriot act at the time.
Secondly whether or not Snowden revealed illegality within the Federal Government's behavior is irrelevant. He is being tried under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which does not allow the defendant to use wistleblowing as a defense. What this means is that he will be tried only on whether or not he released the documents which no one is disputing. Any trial he faces in the United States will be a kangaroo court, and his only hope of winning will be on a jury nullification or a presidential pardon after the fact.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
What the administration should do in Snowden's case is drop all charges, officially exonerate him, and ask for his cooperation in investigating and prosecuting the crimes that he made us all aware of.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Well Obama did promise to be the most open and transparent president ever.
Snowden is a hero, and you're minion.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The trouble is, it by no means clear that, if he did could back to the US, he would indeed be judged in a fair trial.
Then why was Nixon kicked out?
He wasn't kicked out. He resigned before he could be impeached. He was then pardoned shortly afterwards.
There is a reason we don't call them kings.
...then the American symbol called the "Statue of Liberty" is just a meaningless piece of rock....
Unless of course you take the symbolic conspiratorial second meaning which is that America is actually run by the Illuminati (the torch) and it's citizens are slaves in ignorance who falsely believe that they have liberty and justice for all.
The latter seems to make more sense these days.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
How does "congressman Snowdon" sound?
It sounds like a misspelling.
I think Snowden went into this with his eyes open, and rather than running from the consequences of his actions he has chosen one set of consequences over another set. Did his disclosures harm the Intel community? Perhaps, but the Intel community's illegal activities do not enjoy legal or moral cover - they needed to be exposed, and some of them have been declared unconstitutional by courts of law. Without Snowden's disclosures, the courts would never have had the opportunity to exercise oversight. That is what separation of powers is about.
When we weigh the net effect of Snowden's disclosures, the number of illegal and unconstitutional activities the Intel community was engaged seems far greater than the number and volume licit activities that may have been compromised, so I would aver that Snowden's disclosures are probably salutary. It will be some time before the Intel community gets over its temper tantrum about having its illegal toys taken away. And it will probably require cooler heads than those in the current administration (which has shown an unfortunate proclivity to politicize Executive Branch agencies and use them against ideological enemies in an illegal manner) to reconsider whether Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower or a villain. I think in the long term he will be vindicated by history.
In the meantime, living as a man without a country constitutes fairly serious consequences, in my humble opinion.
[apologies for my verbosity in a culture where many are reticent to acknowledge that it is possible and even desirable to use more than 160 characters to communicate.]
" He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
You mean just like Bowe Bergdahl? What a bunch of hypocritical tools...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Secret doesn't imply a kangaroo court... However, I don't think he'd get a secret trial.
There is no reason for a secret trial. All the "secret" evidence is already in the public domain. Why go to all the trouble of setting up a closed trial now? Just try him on what is already public.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I also guarantee that the NSA hasn't changed a single thing nor will they.
Oh contraire...They now watch their contractors like a hawk!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Once people with an actual clue get into power, there's going to be several high level trials, which will include ex-presidents, NSA personnel, CIA personnel, FBI Personnel, let's face it, if it's a government alphabet agency, they're probably in on it. So you'll have plenty of company standing up against that wall.
Enjoy your reprieve while it lasts. The soon to be reorganized Government of the people, by the people and for the people (and no, corporations aren't people) will set things to right, and will welcome Snowden back to U.S. as the hero he is.
What fantasy world are you living in? The two most likely candidates for the next president are Bush or Clinton, neither of which are going
to change anything. Of the 3, Obama is probably the most likely to do something and he has opted not to. Pretty much no-one
"with an actual clue" has any chance of getting close to the white house. It would take citizens who care and aren't being pacified with
bread and circus (reality tv, talking heads, etc) to do any type of reorganization. Even an armed rebellion would get nowhere as anyone
with any resources is comfortable enough to not want to risk their lives. The revolutionary war happened because both the poor and the
well off were hurting. George Washington was one of the richest men in the USA. Even then, only about 20% of the population participated
on either side and they literally couldn't buy themselves shoes. It would take a major drop in standard of living in the USA before anything
like that would ever happen here. People are a lot more risk averse and much less likely to want to leave their comfort zone today.
Thank you for the heads up, I don't often view the firehose, so I missed that one. Maybe we should get a kickstarter going to buy Slashdot off of Dice as the members and make it independent again.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yes, because your country is not doing the same exact thing (albeit with a smaller budget).
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No Mr President you're the one running away from the consequences of his actions.
Exactly this..
Snowden was about advancing HIS image and person and not so much about exposing something that was wrong. Where I believe he thought he had legal grounds, he was self deluded and stupid.
Now he's just a pawn being used to poke the eye of the country he says he loved by a two bit despot.... Way to go dude, you sure messed that one up.
There goes my karma....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There is a reason we don't call them kings.
Yes. They *have* got shit all over them.
*Still* negative function...
----- obSig
this would be a case where it would be interesting to see the different outcome between a jury snowden's "peers" vs a jury of "common folk". against a stacked jury of his peers from the industry he would have no chance. against the common american? do you think he would get the pardon? i guess there is always trial by combat...
It may eventually be deemed to be unconstitutional, but it is allowed by law. Here is the relivant law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You may not agree with it, but as judges have ruled on it, it is a matter of law.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Pardons are forgiveness for guilt. He is guilty of nothing. Betraying a criminal conspiracy to violate our own laws and subvert the open process of their deliberation and public oversight is hardly a crime. If anything it is the people he exposed who should be recieving pardons if they are to be allowed to continue to walk free.
I am far more concerned with the administrations dangerous decision to lie to the public and cover up clear evidence of its own wrongdoing.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Not that every administration in recent memory has not been run by hypocrites but Obama and his people are so naked about it that it hurts.
Wins re-election - "Elections have consequences"
GOP sweep of House and Senate - "Stone walling and veto threats over the budget"
Snowden goes to Russia - "not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime."
Obama goes to Ethiopia - "Its an important strategic ally with a democratically elected government"
Cuba's continued human rights issues right when they are out of client states to help them and finally truly going to be squeeze by the embargo, hah lets open relations....
I say FUCK YOU Mr. President. I get the rules don't apply to you. Authoritarian regimes are fine when they square with your agenda, but anyone else tries to 'use' one its wrong. If you want to claim the moral high ground, then fucking occupy it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yes, I said it. He's a criminal. Of course the gov't should NOT pardon him. All you "US gov't is evil" posers can say all you want, and I may even agree with some of your BS, but he took the trust that his employer (you and I) put in him, and all the pay and benefits, and he stabbed us all in the back. There were other ways to voice his disagreement(s), but he chose to be a petulant 20-something-know-it-all and make HUGE national security decisions that endangered lives and cost taxpayers billions. A 20-something kid (that's what he was) should not be making decisions like that. I am as liberal as they come, but I also believe that the law should still apply to Edward Snowden. He will make a misstep and he will be nabbed, or perhaps Russia will get sick of him and just hand him over.
Your argument was nothing more than snarl words.
I would argue that the government agencies were traitors to the American people, and that Snowden selflessly exposed said treachery the only route that he knew how (since he saw his other whistleblower peers fired and discredited when they brought ethics concerns to the leadership).
Snowden only made obvious how America failed us.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
What Snowden did was technically illegal, but he was exposing previous illegal acts by the government, so he should be pardoned on that basis. Snowden has not been charged (yet) under the espionage act because the possibility of the death penalty would block his extradition from most European countries where he might seek asylum.
"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." That's just ridiculous. He would never see a public courtroom but would be tried in a secret "patriot act " court. I think the authoritarian regime is right here.
This is not the America I grew up in. This is disgraceful.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
You may not agree with it, but as judges have ruled on it, it is a matter of law.
I don't consider a law that attempts to supersede the Constitution valid. Sure, the Patriot Act may be considered law at this moment in time but it's quite obvious the document is in harsh conflict with the founding legal document of the nation, which I also consider law. So let them bicker back and forth in the courts about which law is more valid, personally I'm going to say, "The Constitution is".
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Bravo Sir... I saw you being oppressed right there. It's the violence inherent to the system.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Snowden used the tactic that Obama uses. Snowden knew he wasn't going to get anywhere going thru normal channels and wouldn't enact as much of a change that he wanted to make. So Snowden used his phone (called a reporter) and his pen (his computer) to get the change he so desired. Obama should be praising Snowden for following his lead.
If you're going to willfully allow the spillage of sensitive government material, work in the civil service. Katherine Archuleta from OPM just had to lose her job.
Of the two, who do you think did more damage to American interests and/or jeopardized our clandestine positions?
I think the government has it's priorities VERY backwards.
Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
It's off the market now. I bought it earlier today for 14,500 bottle caps and $100 in NCR money. Also had to throw in 12 bottles of Nuka-Cola and a box of Fancy Lad Snacks, but that was just because of some contractual obligation they had to Pudge.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How does it disagree with the constitution? There are still warrants being sworn out by a court, just not one that is open to the public as the information is mostly classified.
So, how is it contrary or superseding the constitution?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
They have made me angry by abusing my rights and weakened the protections enshrined in the Constitution. I call both harm. If I take your possessions so that you are no longer secure in them - do I harm you? My rights are my property.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country..."
Here it is, put up or shut up: name one single way that I personally am less "secure" due to Snowden's actions.
That's it. One single example.
Either that, or quit pushing this bullshit.
Do you have ESP?
What, the Obama administration is actually going to take a sensible position on something? I can't believe it!
It may eventually be deemed to be unconstitutional, but it is allowed by law. Here is the relivant law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You may not agree with it, but as judges have ruled on it, it is a matter of law.
So was slavery, once... does that make it "right" at the time?
Would you hang all those who helped slaves escape?
If it is wrong, then it is wrong, and no law makes it right.
Let's also not forget that he *did* try blowing the whistle through official channels. (The gov't denied those claims, but then the emails in which he actually did so, were published, demonstrating that the gov't was either mistaken, or lying.)
...ought not to be defined by the government against which it is wielded.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What about the warrant portion do you not understand?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Personally, I think that we, the users of slashdot, should purchase it. I would gladly donate some money for it, and I think a lot of other users would do the same.
There is precedence. The WELL was bought by users, and is still operational.
What's Rob Malda doing these days? Any spare time?
Exactly.
If the end result of civil disobedience is the exact same in the USofA as in North Korea ... then what is the difference?
The politicians demanding martyrdom would be just as comfortable working for North Korea's government as they are working for the USofA's government.
And THAT is a very big problem.
He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
Or he could be pardoned...
The "He should face the consequences of his actions" argument can be used for any crime. The request for a pardon is a specific request that someone *not* face the consequences of their actions, or more accurately, that the consequences of their actions be changed to "no longer be punished".
It's like she is not even acknowledging what is being asked for.
It's like If I go to a car dealership and ask them if they sell any other cars besides what can be seen in the showroom, and the dealer then proceeds to list all the cars in the showroom. If he only has what is in the showroom, a better answer is "I only have what is in the showroom"
If the don't intend to pardon Snowden, all they need to do is say "We don't intend to pardon Mr. Snowden". If everyone *always* had to "face the consequences of their actions", then pardons wouldn't even exist.
If the political winds are blowing in one particular direction, a voice of discontent that speaks against those winds is pointless. For those of us who signed it, all we did was probably get ourselves some extra attention from TSA and Customs.
This is nothing new. The administration has been saying this all along, and the stupidity of it has been pointed out by the people they lionize as having "done it right" in the past.
Read this: http://www.theguardian.com/com...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let's hear what you say under oath and subject to cross examination Ed. I've heard all the self-serving comments to friendly reporters, they don't mean jack.
He wasn't kicked out. He resigned before he could be impeached. He was then pardoned shortly afterwards.
Semantics really. He unquestionably would have been impeached and likely removed from office. And if he didn't do anything there would have been no reason to pardon him.
What do you expect from a country that has a Department of Homeland Security? It sounds like something from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. (Fatherland, motherland, homeland ...)
Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks that. I always thought it sounded uncomfortably like something right out of a oppressive dictatorship or a George Orwell book.
no government is going to officially, publicly condone such a thing being done.
Nobody is asking them to. It would be fine if they would merely drop the issue instead of seeking retribution. That is an option available to them. The cat is out of the bag, the government has egg on its face (deservedly so) and the right thing happened. Time to let it go.
Why do people think he's not going to get an open trial? OR a fair one?
It doesn't matter whether he gets an open trial or not. The trial quite simply will not be fair. That is more or less a foregone conclusion. The laws he is charged under basically allow for no context to be considered even if what he did was morally correct and justified. He quite simply cannot get a fair trial.
The outcome may be obvious, but that doesn't make the trial unfair....
A ludicrous argument because it presumes the laws are just. Laws frequently are wildly unfair and you cannot have a fair trial when you are being judged under unfair laws.
At the jury selection of Tim Dechristopher:
BILL MOYERS: So when did you know for sure that you were going to be convicted?
TIM DECHRISTOPHER: During the jury selection of the trial. That was what really did it. There was a moment during the jury selection we had this huge jury pool because it was a high profile case. And there was a moment where the prosecution and the judge found out that most of that jury pool had gotten a pamphlet before they came in on the first day from the Fully Informed Jurors Association. And it was a pamphlet that didn't say anything about my case, but it talked about jury's rights. It talked about why we have juries. And it, you know, quoted the founders of the country on juries being the conscience of the community. And the prosecution flipped out over this. It was the only time I saw the prosecutor completely lose his cool during the whole process. And we went into the judge's chambers and the prosecutor was screaming and saying, "We should have a mistrial here." And wanted to just throw the whole thing out.
BILL MOYERS: Because of this pamphlet that were—
TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Right. Right. I mean, the prosecutor was almost spitting when he was reading from this and saying, "This notion of voting your conscience it’s out in space." And he was terrified. He was, he was really scared of what was on that pamphlet. And then rather than get rid of the whole jury pool, the judge called the jurors in one at a time to his chambers. And I was—
BILL MOYERS: Each one individually?
TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: Privately?
TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. And my legal team and I were on one side of the table. The prosecution was on the other side. The judge was at the head of the table and there was one juror at a time at the other end. And the judge would say, "You understand it's not your job to decide what's right or wrong here. Your job is to listen to what I say the law says, and you have to enforce it, even if you think it's morally wrong. Can you do that? Can you follow my instructions, even if you think they're morally wrong?"
And unless they said yes, they weren't on the jury. And I was sitting in the seat closest to the juror. And I watched one person after another say, “Yes, your Honor, I'll do whatever you tell me to do, even if I think it's morally wrong." And they meant it. And that's when I knew that I was going to be convicted.
BILL MOYERS: Because they were going to decide if the law had been broken, not if it was a good law?
TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. Yeah. And the judge would define for them what the boundaries of that law was. And, you know, so basically it was if he committed this action, then he's guilty and you have to convict him.
People here forget an important thing: from US government perspective, it is not only about the surveillance stuff that Snowden helped to reveal. Case for his pardon would be much stronger if they thought that he only wanted to expose the surveillance programmes for public good. But government officials claim that only tiny fraction of the files that Snowden took were related to surveillance programmes. According to recent article Snowden supposedly stole 900 000 Department of Defense files, not just NSA files.
You may, justifiably, be skeptical about these claims but nature of Snowden's deeds changes if he stole and/or compromised military secrets. Even if you don't believe it, I remind you that you must take this aspect into account.
dear person or persons who wrote the whitehouse response, i'd like to respond by repeating back to you your exact words:
"If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime"
and, as an aside, dear whitehouse aides, may i remind you what happened to aaron schwartz.
Or perhaps Putin will have him killed is some spectacular false flag operation to make the US government look like total tools.
However, it is quite unlikely Putin cares or is in any way involved in the Snowden case. He is the chief executive of Russia, and has a lot more important things to do than decide if a low level whistle blower gets asylum in Russia or not.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
This is the part that really rubbed me the wrong way:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require."
Here are some of the things Obama said prior to becoming president. This was in 2006:
We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans. ... As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. ... These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.
He said this during his campaign:
strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy
He said this while campaigning in 2007:
I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient
After he critiqued:
the Bush administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens
He promised to:
update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law
He also said he would review the Patriot Act to make sure that necessary protections for constitutional rights were in place.
So, what did he do when he got elected? He renewed the Patriot Act, and didn't do shit about any constitutional overstep until just recently when Rand Paul blocked another renewal of the Patriot Act, and now the White House has the balls to trot out that woman saying what I quoted above, how the president is working sooooo hard on reforms to protect our rights. Yeah, right. This petition hit its mark 2 years ago, why the response now? Because of the actions by Paul and others (most definitely with a massive assist from Snowden) to actually get some sort of dialog going on reforms, and now the White House is trying to take credit for everything. They waited this long to respond to the petition because they had shit to say about it until someone who is not even in the president's party finally gets the ball rolling and they can start taking credit for reforms. It's hollow bullshit. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. This petition response is hollow, it's as hollow as the campaign promises which got me to naively vote for Obama for his first term, and his complete and utter failure to meet any of them is why I didn't vote for him in his second term, so they don't get to claim any sort of high ground on this issue. They did not want these reforms, they were dragged there kicking and screaming the entire way ever since Snowden boarded his
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
"Edward Snowden is an evil turncoat and general git because he embarrassed us in general and Lord God Obama in particular and so we hate him and intend to try to screw him every way we can, so long as it is consistent with the daily screwing requirement of Trey Goudy."
"We live in a dangerous world."
Yes, yes we do. Thanks for the fire and brimstone.
Now it's time for all of you to not fail America.
No administration in its right mind is going to pardon him for it is political suicide. They're more likely to pardon/protect someone that "handles" him and all the other loose ends.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It is funny you try to claim he is a whistleblower when he made no effort to be a whistleblower. Selling IC secrets to the highest bidder is hardly whistleblowing.
It's even worse when one proves it by using it to gain safe passage between one hellhole(China) and the next(Russia). Those plane tickets weren't free, y'know.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Synesthesia much?
Requiem for the American Dream
is this part of the incumbent's (party's) plan to win the next one?
why else wait until now to announce?
You know, you're right. Please paste a link to your personal channel of the Panopticon - oh, and ensure to have your walls replaced by glass toute-de-suite
Requiem for the American Dream
You might have noticed that *noone* cares to think about, less-still legislate on the topic of what is right.
Shame on you for even implying that they should.
Requiem for the American Dream
The talk show circuit in Russia? Or better yet, via satellite?
Grab the vodka, Snowden's on the TV honey! (Said no one ever.. ) His 15 min of fame is over and now he's relegated to making money the Russian way.... How do they do that exactly?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
function furtherAndMoreInvasiveSurveillanceIsJustified () {
return true;
}
while (furtherAndMoreInvasiveSurveillanceIsJustified ()) {
continueAsBefore ();
}
Requiem for the American Dream
20 pounds of fascist dumbfuck in a 5 pound shill sack.
I'm sure there are those who are willing. How about starting the ball rolling with some suggestions which fit together into a medium-to-long term plan?
Requiem for the American Dream
Of course not, well-crafted phrase which can simultaneously rally support amongst the n00bs whilst enraging non-n00bs by flagrant use of hypocrisy. Double-win, woohoo \o/. High-fives all the way back to the speech-writers' office \o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/
Requiem for the American Dream
The Obama White House dithers and dithers and dithers, after which it carefully and deliberately makes the wrong choice.
Yep; people like to feel warm and fuzzy about their country / government; anyone making that position less tenable is to be demonized.
Requiem for the American Dream
Seriously? That's what you're going to post?
Requiem for the American Dream
How much harm is Putin really able to do to us by parading Snowden around? Conversely, how much good did Snowden's revalations do? I think that what little aid and comfort he gave to Putin was a worthwhile exchange, and I'm pretty sure he would agree.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Coming from a government that does unconstitutional things against the people, hiding behind force and threat of force against innocents. Fuck off, Obama administration, you are not American, not legitimate, and not a government of a free people operating under the rule of law
That is a shame, but you're right...
The treason law under which Mr. Snowden would be charged fails to consider motive and is thus a completely unjust law. Imagine committing manslaughter and being changed with first degree murder and having no legal standing to argue motive? I believe Mr. Snowden has committed a crime of treason and should either do short jail time or a suspended sentence. But his motive was to strengthen the United States, and I believe that was also the majority effect of his actions due to both his intent and his responsible handling of the data.
Everybody Lies
That's not how moderation works. That's not how any of this works. I haven't really checked...
On the other hand, I just did a search, like so: http://www.bing.com/search?q=s...
Doesn't seem to result in "oblivion".
hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime
Chortle...Seriously?
Pot, meet kettle!
Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
Unlike James Clapper who enjoys no consequences for his actions- lying under oath to Congress.
Two legs good, four legs bad.
Obama's administration is going to go down in history as the one that best highlights how politically well connected players are "too big to jail" even as law enforcement became more ferocious towards the common and petty criminals.
The entire NSA engaged in unconstitutional spying on Americans on a scale that made the event which inspired the Church Commission look pale in comparison. That is not my opinion, that is a fact established by the courts. They knowingly and deliberately destroyed evidence of torture in order to evade criminal prosecution. No banking executives were prosecuted for a criminal scam which literally brought the economy down. No banking executives were prosecuted for the near daily now criminal operations from Sinaola Mexico cartel (the video-beheading gang) drug money launderig to LIBOR rating rigging to the criminal MITM attack on the stockmarket which was the subject of the book Flashboys.
Yeah I have mixed emotions about Snowden. But I dont' have mixed emotions about any of the trillion dollar criminals who destroyed millions and millioins of people's life savings and millions and millions of people's lives.
So your snarky shit about facingthe consequences of your actions rigs hollow to these ears. How's Eric Holder doing these days working for the entities he declained to prosecute? You nkow, the same ones he worked for before he was AG?
Oh, we paid all that money back, they say. Yeah? Did you go back and retoractively undestroy all the lives which were destroyed because of your actions also? Did you reset the course of all those personal histories back to what they were before they lost their jobs their homes their savings their time ?
How is THAT REAL cost not calculated in what you did. You paid the government back the bailout money. Fuck you and the horse named the Obama Administration you rode in on.
This from someone who cried tears of joy when this President did his inaugural walk.
What you don't like is the law... Fine, just don't keep saying he won't get a fair trial because according to the LAW he will. Saying he won't get a fair trial is wrong. The courts are there to fairly apply the law and for the most part, that's what they do.
You cannot have a fair trial governed by unfair laws. Jim Crow laws were brutally unjust. Are you seriously going to claim that the rulings under Jim Crow laws were in any way fair or just? Just because something is the law does not mean trials will be fair. It is a trivial exercise to write laws that clearly prevent a fair trial under any reasonable definition of the term "fair". You seem to have a fairly mechanical definition of the word fair. Just because something follows the law does not mean it is fair. Under your logic anything a dictator does is fair because he is applying the law interpreted correctly. That's a ridiculous argument.
Although it seems obvious to me that the laws on treason are fairly clear and even handed
I guess it's fortunate you aren't a lawyer then because it's not at all clear that the actions of Mr. Snowden constitute treason. In fact it's rather easy to argue that they do not under the US Constitution which puts some rather strict limits on the definition of treason. He did not levy war against the US and it's debatable whether he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the US. Convictions or even indictments for treason in the US are quite rare. The most recent was in 2006 and the last before that was in 1952. Mr. Snowden's actions would likely be considered a felony rather than treason. Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers wasn't charged with treason nor were numerous captured spys and others who released confidential documents.
I'm not sure how you think the law can be changed so Snowden get's what you think is a fair result, without letting other folks off who really *should* be convicted.
The law doesn't have to be changed at all. The justice department merely has to decline to prosecute or the President can grant a pardon. Happens all the time. The next guy can be prosecuted or not under the same set of rules without changing anything or causing any serious problems.
The late, former head of the NSA, Lieutenant General William E. Odom, respectfully disagrees.
http://www.middlebury.edu/medi...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The word "the" is a notorious trickster.
They say "running away from the consequences" when what they really mean is "running away from one particular set of consequences where we get all the photo ops wearing the stick".
The problem with this image is that greater society doesn't usually hand the stick to men wearing B&W, pin-stiped, double-breasted pygamas. He who breaks the law finds the stick slippery.
The consequences is presently enduring are already pretty unpleasant: notoriety he can never live down, and de facto house arrest without so much as a landlord-tenant act to protect his interests.
I'd also suggest that his marriage, family, and career prospects are not what they once were.
Of course, the vast majority of the American population would jump at the chance to throw over marriage, family, and career for the least chance to stick it to The Man, so we better add another heaping helping of grim before all hell breaks loose.
As far as I can tell, the NSA makes a real attempt to stay within the law. They push the borders as hard as they can, and sometimes go over, and I don't agree with a lot of their interpretations, but it at least looks like they can be reined in with laws. The hard part is getting the people to put pressure on their Congressional representatives.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What bullshit. This is NOT Land of the Free. We're all guilty until proven otherwise. Just stand accused and see how much of your money and resource is required to buy justice regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent. Snowden is a hero fighting a totalitarian regime and if we're very lucky, someday his statue will stand on the DC Mall.
Your definition of a "kangaroo court" is nonstandard. It appears to be a court that pays attention to laws you don't like.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Right now, it makes little sense to talk about the most likely candidates. Nobody has won a primary or a caucus. A lot of things can change between now and then.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
All your comments on if he should return and how to get a fair trial I must assume is hyperbole.
The very law he's charged under prevents him from putting up ANY defense at all. All he can basically do nothing more than plead guilty, or not guilty. There is no jury of his peers. She is so smug and confidant in the public's idiocy that she say's this publicly. To many who I would think have enough knowledge of the issue to know that she is lying out right.
Of course the general public doesn't know this. They think he could get a fair trial. That's the law right? That's how it works? No, that's not how it works. She says, "Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest". How would he or we be able to do that when we don't know there is a problem or what that problem is? It's laughable.
Finally. since we found out about it, we've been doing nothing but challenging it, speaking out, and engaging in a constructive protest. What has that gotten us? NOTHING. Using the tool provided never gets us anything because they're simply ignored. Does she want James R. Clapper to face the consequences of his actions. Dick Cheney, George W Bush? FUCK OFF.
Right now, it makes little sense to talk about the most likely candidates. Nobody has won a primary or a caucus. A lot of things can change between now and then.
I agree "past performance doesn't mean future results" but I guess I'm a little cynical as it seems like the dominate candidates always seem to be just more of the same. Candidates with fresh ideas are always labelled as too extreme and pushed to the fringe while the "more of the same" candidates sometime pay lip service to a few of the fresh ideas of the other candidates just so they can still win while changing nothing.
I just received an acknowledgment from whitehouse.gov indicating that I voted exactly opposite to what I would have voted. Not happy about this. Apparently it's possible to sign these petitions without any sort of confirmation whatsoever.
Like I said to the other guy who doesn't want to listen...
Your issue is with the law, not the courts, with the people who WROTE the law, not the judge or the process. Stop saying it would be an unfair trial.
I'm not going to engage in the debate over the law being fair or not because it's pointless and largely meaningless to this situation. The law is what it is, I didn't write it nor wish to argue about it. You need to go after the people who wrote it if you don't like it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Its been more than 2 years and the perpetrators of illegally eves-dropping on the conversations of the citizens are still at large. People inside NSA are still happily continuing to violate peoples privacy. Where is justice? Who would trust and come back to a land where there is no justice?
I call it a Kangaroo court because it is a trial in name only, and the process is rigged. Under the laws that others have pointed out Snowden is prevented from even making a case for his defense. Unless the jury decides to use Jury Nullification they might as well not show up to save themselves the travel fees.
I realize that the definition is non standard, but I think it accurately describes this situation where the results are decided well before the trial begins in a process that is flagrantly unconstitutional.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
You wrote a long post about Obama that makes it seem like he is an outlier when it comes to failure to uphold campaign promises. You do know that every single president in history has made a ton of promises while campaigning that were later dropped or not accomplished once elected, right? That isn't excusing any president, it is just a statement of fact.
You wrote a long post about Obama that makes it seem like he is an outlier when it comes to failure to uphold campaign promises.
It wasn't my intention to make him seem like an outlier, I just believed he wasn't going to be the same as everyone else. In other words, I thought he would be an outlier in that he would actually do many of the things he promised which I felt were important. I was wrong.
You do know that every single president in history has made a ton of promises while campaigning that were later dropped or not accomplished once elected, right?
Yes.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black