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."

32 of 608 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, be a man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let us kill you.

    1. Re:Yeah, be a man! by nytes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let us kill you.

      If the crime fits....

      I have a feeling that he could plea bargain a deal that returned him to the states and preserved his life if for nothing else but to avoid the public trial.

      Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too.. I don't think this administration cares one way or the other.

      Public trial?

      There will be no such thing. No jury of his peers.

      The most you'd ever hear about it would be some very generalized, declassified summaries of the day's activity, carefully selected to eliminate any suspicion that he might not be guilty.

      The verdict has already been decided.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    2. Re:Yeah, be a man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jury of his peers? Impossible.

      Where are the feds going to find 12 whistle blower heroes?

    3. Re:Yeah, be a man! by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree heavily. Even the US isn't so dumb as to target a killing in Russia. They can get away with it in Pakistan who isn't going to fight back, but with Putin? There isn't a chance in hell. Putin has every reason to keep Snowden alive and happy in Russia if nothing else because it is a political black eye against the US. If he comes back to the US, he'll probably "commit suicide" in prison awaiting trial.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    4. Re:Yeah, be a man! by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      The evidence is classified, so the trial can't be public. Classified information doesn't suddenly become unclassified when it's made public. It doesn't matter if the whole world knows; these are government rules, they're not supposed to make sense.

  2. Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. No surprises there... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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...
    1. Re:No surprises there... by QuadEddie · · Score: 5, Informative

      But they do pardons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... A group of those guys set off 120 bombs in major US cities. Snowden would be treated harsher than those terrorists.

    2. Re:No surprises there... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One important difference between Obama and Sanders is that Obama had pretty much zero track record before he took office. He was a state senator for a brief time, and then a US senator for a very brief time, and that's it. He was really an unknown; why people elected him is a mystery, probably just because they thought he was an "outsider". Sanders, OTOH, has a very, very long track record in politics, so you can just refer to that. If he ends up behaving completely different after being elected, then you really have to wonder if the Presidency isn't being completely controlled by someone else.

  4. Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.gov by TheDarkener · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Repressive State Apparatus Doubles Down by MisterSquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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
  6. Is anyone actually suprised? by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re: Is anyone actually suprised? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      And when there were whistleblowers before him who tried to report issues they saw. These people don't have the name recognition of Snowden because their reports were hushed up and the whistleblowers were accused of wrongdoing themselves. Snowden saw how "work within the official channels" went and chose a more effective method, albeit one that put him into permanent exile.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re: Is anyone actually suprised? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 ...)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  7. Peace Prize for Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Give him the Peace Prize and lets see if we would jail a Nobel Laureate

  8. Response from the White House by Merk42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When has a petition that garnered enough signtures not been met with the response: "Fuck you, we're not going to change"?

  9. Re:Jury Nullification by Forgefather · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  10. Re:I'd be more sympathetic if he weren't a doucheb by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Informative

    Instead, he indiscriminately handed sensitive national secrets over to a foreigner,

    Glenn Greenwald is a "foreigner"? Since when?

  11. Re:Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.go by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Informative

    He wasn't kicked out. He resigned before he could be impeached. He was then pardoned shortly afterwards.

  12. Re:Jury Nullification by chefmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Jury Nullification by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  14. Re:Translation by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More importantly, the message here is that being right doesn't matter; being good and obedient preserves you, while being right only makes you a martyr. If you expose the corruption of those in power, that's well and good, and a great civil duty; however, you must understand that you will be punished.

    The implication is that, civil duty or not, you should think long and hard about pitching your own skin into the cause, because we sure as hell aren't going to reward you just for doing a great service to humanity. Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.

  15. Re:Translation by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he made no effort to be a whistleblower

    False there are e-mails that have been more or less corroborate that indicate he DID raise the issue up the chain of command. He was basically told not to worry his pretty little head about it and get back to work.

    Selling IC secrets to the highest bidder is hardly whistleblowing

    Are you aware of any evidence he every sold any secrets? I am not.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  16. Whistle blower by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Whistle blower by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What Snowden did was technically illegal

      For the record, what every single one of the Founding Fathers of the United States did was "technically illegal", too.

      Boston Tea Party? technically illegal

      Rosa Parks technically illegal

      Susan B Anthony? technically illegal

      Martin Luther King, Jr? technically illegal

      So, Ms Lisa Monaco, go jump in the motherfucking sea. You suggest that the "right way" for Mr Snowden to react to finding that his government was doing illegal shit would be to "speak out about it. Well, madame spokesperson, how the fuck do you "speak out" about something that it's illegal to disclose?

      Was Snowden supposed to go on the Sunday talk shows and say, "the government is doing really sleazy, illegal and unconstitutional shit, but I can't tell you what it is"? They'd have laughed at him.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Whistle blower by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He should have gone on the Sunday talk shows and say, "the government is doing really sleazy, illegal and unconstitutional shit, and I am violating my oath and the law by telling you exactly what they are."

      When your oath to the government requires you to keep government wrongdoing secret, the problem is not with the whistleblower, but with the government.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Whistle blower by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      And all three of which went to prison for their technically illegal actions.

      Wrong. Martin Luther King, Jr, Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony did NOT go to prison. They were arrested, booked and released. MLK spent some time in a local jail, but that's not the same as being sent to prison.

      A better example for Snowden would be Daniel Ellsberg, who is now seen as a hero.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Whistle blower by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He is not on the same level as Rosa Parks, Susan B Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr.

      I don't think you grasp just how different Snowden is from Parks.

      What, pray tell was the maximum penalty Rosa Parks faced for failing to comply with a Montgomery city ordinance? Legally? She wasn't in any real danger. A modest fine, or a couple nights in jail.

      Her only real risk was that she could have been beaten (illegally) by police in an era and region where the people beating her would have gotten away with it.

      King Jr? Arrested several times. No serious charges, and no serious penalties. Like Parks his greatest risk was illegal beatings and vigilantism. There's certainly no question what he did took courage. But the authority of the government itself wasn't really a threat to him. And the government wasn't going to threaten to shoot down a passenger plane he was on just to get their hands on him.

      How about Susan B Anthony? She was arrested, and fined $100. (A lot more then than now, but still... small potatoes.)

      You are right, Parks, Anthony and King Jr aren't on the same level as Snowden. He's in a level of trouble so much greater; those others never even scratched the surface.

      No, Snowden is up there with Ben Franklin and the like. People who resisted their government at the very highest levels, people who would have hanged for their activities if they'd allowed themselves to get caught.

    5. Re:Whistle blower by DarkTempes · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do remember that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, right? He was under surveillance by the FBI, the NSA, and police in order to undermine his civil rights movement -- as he was killed.

      A 1999 civil court case decided that government agencies were liable for participation in the conspiracy to assassinate him.

      Sure, that's not proof but the fact that the guy died standing up for what he believes in kind of says that the danger was as real as it is for Snowden...

    6. Re:Whistle blower by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh a comedian, US corporations are pretty malevolent, from pharmaceuticals lying and killing people to generate extra profits, to oil companies taking cheap ass short cuts and killing people to the US military industrial complex actively promoting war for it's own sake and killing people. These psychopaths run the US government and that pretty much makes the US government as malevolent as it gets.

      What the US government press really wanted to say in the press release "We were breaking laws all over the world in collusion with US corporations and mostly getting away with it, so fuck Snowden and as a warning to others who believe in honesty and justice, we will kill him and any other traitors to Psychopaths Incorporated 'er' the US Government". This is not about justice, this is about promoting the take over of the whole world by US corporations and enslavement of the worlds population. Of course psychopaths being psychopaths, it really is all about promoting global chaos because psychopaths thrive in chaos, it is quite simply who they are.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  17. Re:Off Topic Editorial Complaint by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    So how many of you know that Slashdot is up for sale? It's been on the firehose [slashdot.org] and elsewhere on the web all morning, but, as near as I can tell, not on the Slashdot front page?

    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.
  18. No just laws = No fair trial by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.