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.
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"
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
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.
Silly plebe. Laws only apply to the little people. Not those with wealth and power.
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?
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."
Then why was Nixon kicked out?
He wasn't kicked out. He resigned before he could be impeached. He was then pardoned shortly afterwards.
Your choice, but I suggest you pay attention to the primaries at least and go out of your way to vote in them. The main problem for both parties is the lack of interest in selecting the proper candidates, and the tendency to elect the "best looking" and best funded over the best candidate.
After that, may I suggest you pay attention to the principles behind the positions of each of the candidates and pick the one that most matches what you actually agree with. Not the sound bites on TV, their actual positions and records...
Of course this may take too much effort, in which case, just forget the whole thing and stop complaining about those who are elected in races you didn't vote in.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How does "congressman Snowdon" sound?
It sounds like a misspelling.
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?
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...
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
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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
No.
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.
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
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.