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.
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!
Give him the Peace Prize and lets see if we would jail a Nobel Laureate
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.
"and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions." Isn't whistle blowing legally protected from retaliation?
On paper, but they've already wiped their ass with it so they don't care much.
Silly plebe. Laws only apply to the little people. Not those with wealth and power.
Basically a kangaroo court. Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense. Meaning even if he revealed illegal behavior in the federal governments he can't argue that as a defense. He will be tried only on whether or not he released the documents, which no one disputes, and will be put away for the rest of his life.
The entire system is rigged to put him away in a safe, dark, and silent cell where he won't embarrass anymore powerful people.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
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?
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."
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
Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense.
Actually, it's worse than that. Two of the counts he's charged with are violations of the Espionage Act, which was intended to prevent US citizens from colluding with US enemies during World War I. Unfortunately, the law provides no room for affirmative defenses at all: if secrets were leaked, you're guilty, and the court isn't allowed to consider even the slightest sliver of the surrounding context. Did you uncover something illegal? Doesn't matter. Is this course of action the only one that would have turned up malfeasance by intelligence agencies? That can't be discussed.
The reason the Obama administration's insistence that Snowden come back to the US to "face a fair trial" is so flagrantly disingenuous is that the act that he's charged under, by virtue of its complete lack of defenses, is explicitly and intentionally designed to result in anything but a fair trial. They're inviting him home for a railroading, and it doesn't matter whether it's done in private or public: he's fucked.
You should watch citizenfour, which spends quite a bit of time on this specific issue of how inappropriate the Espionage Act is for Snowden's actions, and just how unfair is is designed to be.
There is a reason we don't call them kings.
Yes. They *have* got shit all over them.
*Still* negative function...
and in most of the US, its borderline illegal to even MENTION JN in court. judges will kick you out, lock you up, threaten you, try to scare you. voire dire does all it can to try to reject jurors that even KNOW what JN is. and if you tell them during VD that you don't know what JN is and then later, they find out you do, you are in contempt.
its all neatly stacked up so that your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are not vocalized or listed or communicated to you.
"nice liberty you got there; would be a shame if something were to happen to it"
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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
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?
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.