Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden Before Leaving Office (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Verge: Ever since Edward Snowden set in motion the most powerful public act of whistleblowing in U.S. history, he has been living in exile in Russia from the United States. An article in this week's New York Magazine looks at how Snowden may have a narrow window of opportunity where President Obama could pardon him before he leaves office. Presumably, once he leaves office, the chances of Snowden being pardoned by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are miniscule. Obama has said nothing in the past few years to suggest he's interested in pardoning Snowden. Not only would it contradict his national security policy, but it will severely alienate the intelligence community for many years to come. With that said, anyone who values a free and secure internet believes pardoning Snowden would be the right thing to do. The Verge reports: "[Snowden] faces charges under the Espionage Act, which makes no distinction between delivering classified files to journalists and delivering the same files to a foreign power. For the first 80 years of its life, it was used almost entirely to prosecute spies. The president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all president before him combined. His Justice Department has vastly expanded the scope of the law, turning it from a weapon against the nation's enemies to one that's pointed against its own citizens. The result will be less scrutiny of the nation's most powerful agencies, and fewer forces to keep them in check. With Snowden's push for clemency, the president has a chance to complicate that legacy and begin to undo it. It's the last chance we'll have."
but ES won't be one
He'll have to pardon Hillary first
Presumably, once he leaves office, the chances of Snowden being pardoned by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are miniscule.
And what makes the chances of Snowden being pardoned by Obama non-miniscule?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
A flying pig!
The man deserves jail time. There are many more criminals on the Internet and he made public government secrets that compromise our security as well as gave terrorists insight on how to avoid being traced. Edward Snowden should be executed.
Yes he should.
POTUS should do all sorts of things, according to many people. He should come clean about the alien reptile people. He should grab a bite to eat every now and then to keep his energy level up. He should pardon all the whistle blowers that were promised the most transparent administration in history.
Hillary won't pardon him if she wins, probably. Same reason.
Trump might. Just to spite Obama. Or not, because I doubt he gives a crap about Snowden (he's old news).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yea, if Obama had a son, he wouldn't look like Snowden. No pardon.
Snowden is a traitor. If all he had done was to be a whistleblower for the overreaching programs that illegally monitored US Citizens (on US soil no less!), then you could argue that he was a whistleblower and that he deserves to be pardoned.
However, he instead released an enormous amount of legitimate, sensitive information that did harm to our intelligence gathering capabilities.
Snowden himself has stated that he took the job with the intent to do his gathering effort, then release it. The fact that it wasn't after he was hired that he realized what was wrong with the system is yet another point that he is a traitor.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Whenever i see planted opinions masquerading as legitimate, organic thought, I cam't help but ask.
Snowden made a choice to go further than he should have. He could have become a whistle-blower, and had the protections provided by that, but instead, he chose to just release these documents out there. He clearly had a knowledge that he was violating the law, or he would not have fled the country when doing it.
Get off of Slashdot, Edward.
A 'pardon' suggests that you've done something wrong but are being let of lightly because we are just that nice. Give the guy a damn medal.
Why pardon him? Conspiracies aside so how do we know Snowden was looking out for US citizens? What if Snowden was working for the Russians as a sleeper or some other foreign gov't? Is the world a better place because of Snowden? Did anything change because of Snowden? Nothing has changed. So what is the point of the pardon? Let's say he does pardon him, do you think the US won't interrogate him? Again, I ask why? It will change nothing.
Fuck no. He's a traitor.
You can have an argument about what he revealed in general was beneficial or not, but he gave and sold a metric shitload of classified info to our enemies.
To even suggest it as a possibility is ludicrous.
Nonsense! It gets a lot of page hits, and there will tons of shouting right here. Over 500 different pontifications, all more righteous than the pope himself, in their minds...
No, sirree! This ain't crazy. It is Madison Avenue at its best
Actually, since Trump has already spoken against Snowden, it seems more likely that Obama would pardon Snowden. Trump's nature is very unlikely to walk back on Snowden. However, Obama might not resist the urge to tweak a President elect Trump's nose by pardoning Snowden.
President Obama is many things, but on his list of top personal identities, I don't see any identity that would pardon Edward Snowden. I think he's a good man, and even a good president under the circumstances, but it ain't going to happen.
Just to clarify my analysis, let me pick the personal identity of "politician". I happen to think it might be Obama's #1 identity, but it's certainly near the top of his list. Pardoning Snowden would be extremely bad as a political move and would give enormous fuel and enthusiasm to his political enemies.
The best candidate to pardon Snowden would probably be a philosopher who was primarily concerned about right and wrong, and you better not hold your breath waiting for one to become president. I actually think that Obama has a philosophical streak, but not in his top 10 identities. His identity as a lawyer is certainly higher, and professional lawyers are trained to ignore such trivialities as right and wrong.
On the third hand, I also blame the big dick Cheney, both for creating the personal-privacy-abusing national security apparatus that Obama has to deal with (in his persona as a realist) and for stuffing the entire civil service with ideologues. That may be the worst legacy of Dubya's miserable failure of an administration. The federal civil service was supposed to be task-oriented and apolitical, an organization of professionals who would competently and impartially administer whatever legislation the political process threw at them, and even ignoring political pressures from the executive branch. Not so under Cheney and his cronies, who actively worked to drive out competent careerists and carefully screened the personal politics of all new hires. Of course the punchline is that the so-called Republican Party now blames Obama for being unable to fix the system they worked so hard to break and keep broken.
Pardoning Snowden? You'd be better off hoping they decided corporations are inhuman monstrosities hiding under the legal fiction of decency.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
He hasn't stood trial nor been convicted of anything.
I don't know about most of you, but I still find the whole thing around Snowden weird. I mean /., the internet, and the whole US made such a big deal about it, but I pretty much assumed that what he "revealed" was going on already. I mean everyone acts like it was a big shock, but seriously, why was anyone surprised by it?
First of all, Obama SHOULDN'T pardon him.
Although many of the things Snowden released could be considered whistle-blowing for the benefit of the American people, he also released information about how America spies on competitors and enemies overseas. That's not whistle-blowing. It's interfering with intelligence-gathering. Snowden should return to America, plead guilty, and the judge should take into consideration the balance between the good done and the damage done.
Second of all, Obama WON'T pardon him.
The Obama administration has been harder than any literally other administration on whistle-blowers. What makes you think he would go easy on the most significant whistle-blower of our generation?
As any other traitor must.
There is an endless discussion about everything but the real issue:
Our freedom is being completely destroyed along with the hope that we will ever get it back.
Our future is being threatened. Our lives are at risk.
I think everyone will agree that Trump loves money. A lot. Even Trump's most ardent supporters.
Did you know that Trump spent about $80,000 to run an ad in favor of the death penalty for the kids who confessed to the rape and murder of the Central Park jogger in 1989?
Funny thing about that story. They were innocent and their confessions were coerced lies. The REAL rapist was identified more than 10 years later and the kids (grown into prison-hardened adults) were released. No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is one reference source.
If you scratch an ardent Trump supporter, you find a hater. My mental image is the Donald sitting on a high chair that he imagines to be a throne. One leg is for government haters, and the others are for Hillary haters, bigots, and racists. Some of them are trying to realize that hate is a bad sales pitch, and they are trying to put a nice veneer on it, trying to fudge some positive reason to support Trump, but scratch the paint and you'll see the hate.
In conclusion, Trump is distinctly unlikely to pardon Edward Snowden.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that you have to be convicted before you can be pardoned.
Mr. O could maybe influence the prosecutors drop charges, but I have no clue how that works.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
No way.
I am confused. I thought that, to be pardoned, you have to have been found guilty of, or pleaded guilty to, something in a court of law.
He has been charged, but there has been no trial, in absentia or otherwise. So how can he even legally be pardoned?
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way. Because if there's one thing Brits absolutely love, it's being pushed around by foreigners, which, duh, was the whole fucking point of the question.
Really, if I was some head of state, I'd be like "That's a matter for the people of X". At the very strongest, if pushed, I'd say "Well, personally, I'd prefer..." or "If I was one of them, I'd probably choose...". I wouldn't make threats.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What happened to that mantra?
He's saving his pardon for Hillary.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
However, as TFS said:
The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama pardoning Snowden is about as likely as Bill Clinton being a virgin.
What about Hillary Clinton? The Clintons have been in office or running for office most of their adult lives, since 1977. Most of her career, Bill was the public face of the the team, the actual office holder, while Hillary's role was PR, whitewashing negative information, from small issues of character to major scandals. For example, she assembled and led the teams trying to discredit women like Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones, trying to persuade the public that those events never happened and the women were liars. Her career has been all about HIDING the affairs of government officials. A whistle blower like Snowden, someone who puts the truth on public display, is her enemy, a total low-life from her perspective.
That's an interesting thought, I had to look it up.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, for all offences "committed or may have committed".
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Apparently the presidential pardon is for crimes, not offences.
Which, I suppose, is the right way to do it.
A pardon wouldn't be enough. Snowden wouldn't survive long on US soil even if he were pardoned. He's made too many powerful enemies whose job it is to kill people. He only survives in Russia by being careful and not being a valuable enough target to risk an embedded assassin.
all more righteous than the pope himself, in their minds
In YOUR mind.
DISCLAIMER: I posted this more self-righteous than Jesus.
Pardoning implies that Snowden violated the law, which he clearly did. It's a way of acknowledging that the crime committed was the right thing to do.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way.
This makes the tacit assumption that leaving the EU was a bad decision.
The [brexit vote] demographics show that a large percentage of people with a degree voted to leave (43% leave versus 57% remain), so you can't say with certainty that staying was the smart thing to do.
The critics are particularly vocal, but not everyone thinks it was a bad move.
"[the] Justice Department has vastly expanded the scope of the law, turning it from a weapon against the nation's enemies to one that's pointed against its own citizens"
That is inevitable if you have given citizenship to people such as militant muslims who hate your (and now their own) country, and only became citizens of it in the first place to further their activities against it. It follows from having "cultural diversity", "a vibrant mix", or whatever BS phrase the one-worlders currently favour.
Very often pardons come before someone is charged with a crime. At the Constitutional convention and in the Federalist papers, two reasons for early pardon were mentioned. It can be used as immunity for a witness. For example pardoning Hillary's email admin would allow him to testify regarding what Hillary asked him to do. That end can be achieved by the prosecutor's office promising not to prosecute as well. Second, for national reconciliation. Lincoln pardoned the confederates at the end of the Civil War, Johnson pardoned the draft dodgers of Vietnam so the country could move forward.
The likelihood that Obama will pardon anyone who exposes the government's secrets? As the fine summary points out:
The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama REALLY doesn't like people talking about how the sausage is made.
Rod Blagojevich needs a pardon!
Not necessarily. Pardons have been used in cases where the pardoner believed the person was falsely accused.
Obama is a globalist. Being a globalist is about control. Specifically information control.
Snowden messed with the new world order. He will not be pardoned by Obama.
TL:DR, Ed will not be pardoned, as an object example to a potentially very leaky age.
Per TFA: For the first 80 years of its life, it was used almost entirely to prosecute spies. The president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all president before him combined. His Justice Department has vastly expanded the scope of the law.
There's a good reason for this. The digitization of most current technical, planning, organizational, and intelligence information means that it can be distributed in mass in ways detrimental to the interests of the United States by any metric. Manning and Snowden have demonstrated the risk from users inside the system. One can lock down systems, but all for not unless the vast majority of users elect not to try. Like so many aspects of criminal law, so many perps slip through without justice being meted out, that those who do get caught, tried, and convicted oftentimes get the book thrown at them as an example to others. "See Dick do something bad? Don't be a Dick." This isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.
So, while Chelsea and Ed may have provided a degree of public service by bringing to light certain practices "we" as a body would prefer the government not engage in, they also dumped boatloads of information that do nothing - much less than nothing - to protect the liberties of Americans. So, Ed will remain a wanted suspect, and if caught and convicted like Chelsea, will do hard time.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I think everyone will agree that Trump loves money. A lot. Even Trump's most ardent supporters.
Did you know that Trump spent about $80,000 to run an ad in favor of the death penalty for the kids who confessed to the rape and murder of the Central Park jogger in 1989?
Funny thing about that story. They were innocent and their confessions were coerced lies. The REAL rapist was identified more than 10 years later and the kids (grown into prison-hardened adults) were released. No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I had originally thought that Hillary had only the one issue (E-mail scandal), but it turns out she's got a whole rack of skeletons in her closet.
If particular note, she made (what she called) a "shameless pitch" to Russia on behalf of Boeing. Russia made a multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing, and Boing then put $900,000 into the Clinton foundation.
Or giving the OK for a uranium deal to a close friend, after which the same close friend put $2.35 million into the Clinton foundation.
Trump has a history of getting money through business, but Hillary has a history of getting money through corruption.
She's not called dirty Hillary for nothing!
Who do you hate most?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
He'll probably pardon someone connected to the mafia or financial scandals who is politically connected. Obama has been the strongest outspoken opponent of Snowden, and I doubt that is going to change.
Who do you hate most?
Same question can be made of a Hillary supporter.
And a Sanders supporter.
Pardon William Leonard Pickard
How can he pardon someone who has never been convicted?
Bernard Madoff would be a better candidate for a pardon.
In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings.
An American, a presidential candidate, called up the head of a country we were trying to make peace with, and said "if you don't broker the peace, I'll give you a better deal when I'm in office".
Eventually, Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC.
Derailing a peace talk, extending a brutal and pointless war costing tens of thousands of American lives, for political gain.
That's really, *really* bad... even by today's standards.
I have a feeling Edward is going to be Snowden for a long time.
People say he did it out of conviction or stayed true to his principles. Well, so does a suicide bomber.
But here's the difference: The suicide bomber is expecting a reward - 72 virgins or some other heavenly reward. Snowden knew he would throw away his life but he didn't do it for a personal reward. He did it for others, for his country.
I haven't made up my mind whether Snowden was misguided, stupid or justified. But I have concluded that the man is principled and a selfless patriot. He might be stupid and misguided, but he felt he did the right thing, at great personal cost to himself, for no personal reward.
Thanks. I wasn't paying attention to which president since it didn't matter to my point.
Obama is just as corrupt as those who came before him. He's just a good orator. That's it.
Because Clinton needs a lot more pardoning than ES.
(Yes I know you were talking about a different Clinton)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
.. themselves above the law?
That's the only reason I could see where the "Intelligence Community" would be 'alienated'.
Some special grade of citizen above the rest of the plebs?
The idea horrifies me.
but no he won't
and you can't unpardon them either. You could dismiss the charges with prejudice so they can't be re-instated.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Those that think Obama would be more likely to pardon Snowden clearly haven't been paying attention.
Earth is a single point of failure.
He needs to return to this country and be judged by a jury of his peers. He can explain why he took the action he took and then went to Russia for shelter. A jury can hear it straight from him. Let the people most affected by his acts decide if it was for their benefit, or just for his.
was dubya pardoned?
If that's your idea of a meaningful discussion, then...
I win.
Clinton sold pardons to anyone who could afford the price tag. Obama might not sell quite as many, but Snowden doesn't have the cash anyway,
" Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media"
First, wikileaks isn't a media company. Second, two of those "reputable" (LOL) news sources that you speak of, including the Washington Post, ignored Manning when he contacted them--which is why he went to Wikileaks. Funny how one little detail like this fells a house of cards, which is in this case your babble about Manning being motivated by "hubris". Hubris! Same old argument, be it Assange Greenwald or Manning. You need a new script.
Just wanted to point out that Libertarian candidate Johnson has said publicly that he would consider pardoning Snowden.
Your outage would be more impressive if you had realized that I was discussing Snowden, not Manning.
I would not accuse Manning of being motivated by a desire for the limelight; he sought no public recognition and was only outed by someone that he foolishly confided in. If you're going to commit a Federal felony you should probably have the discipline to keep your mouth shut. I think that he was used by all sides -- Assange certainly did him no favors; there's another glory seeking asshole that needs the affirmation of the masses -- and I would not put him in the same category as I place Snowden.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
He was never tried or convicted, but was pardoned by President Ford. You only need to have the _potential_ to be convicted of a crime to be pardoned. As with Nixon, the President could claim that it would be in the best interests of the country. (Don't misread "could", I chose it intentionally.)
I have no idea why people invent fairy tales when historical facts are readily available.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In a police state Snowden will never be pardoned.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
That's actually a fair point.
In the future, if you were to wrap that in a sentence or two with the link as one of the words, and drop the childish name calling, you'd probably get voted up.
Whoops, sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed I was seeing talk of Manning because of many details including this:
Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences. ..which is totally not true, and is much more often (wrongfully) attributed to Manning for the fact of Wikileaks' releasing a large volume. "Snowden's media buddies"--you mean, "journalists"? Media buddies would be an apt term if they were actually associated with any large media companies at the time. These "media buddies" as you call them, now at theintercept.org ,have slowly and responsibly reviewed and released documents, and in many cases refrained from leaking things they believe would harm national security. This includes fact of Afghanistan's telephone system being surveilled 24/7, which Wikileaks wound up revealing only because the Intercept refused to. Also, most of what was revealed with Snowden's leaks was domestic--so what consequences are you so scared of, huh?
They did not "dump everything out", and there has been consideration of the consequences. The government has offered no evidence whatsoever--after much review--that Snowden's actions did any tangible harm.. just like Manning.
the leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media
Again, I thought you were talking about Manning leaking to Snowden, because this is totally wrong--many of the Intercept, including Laura Poitress and Glenn Greenwald, are Americans. Intercept also didn't exist when Snowden first leaked these things, but came about because of it. At least Wikileaks is "foreign".
That's great that you share emotional sentiment about the character of Snowden with Robert Gates--is that supposed to compel me? And I guess that's all you share, unless you give me some examples as to what he leaked that pisses you off so much. Is it how the feds have modified exported router hardware? Or their various invasions of Google's subnets? Does learning that our government sees us at enemies make you mad at Snowden ? Really?
What I mentioned about hubris (as you put it) still applies--when it comes to Assange or Snowden, the "egomaniac" / "narcissist" narrative is just too obvious.
President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden Before Leaving Office
Why? Even if pardoned it would never be safe for him to return to any country where the US has sway.
If only ES was a Thanksgiving Turkey, he might have a chance...
He can't pardon someone who has not been convicted of a crime. So long as he's a fugitive from justice, he's presumed innocent. Innocent people are not convicted people, and so he can't be pardoned because there's nothing to pardon him FOR.
The president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all president before him combined. His Justice Department has vastly expanded the scope of the law, turning it from a weapon against the nation's enemies to one that's pointed against its own citizens.
I think this needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt. Firstly, does the president have the power to prosecute anyone? I thought that would be for the public prosecutor or something; the president would not have the legal power to prosecute any criminal. Of course, this may be different under America law.
Secondly, I think it is a fundamentally dishonest way to use statistics, comparing the current president to "all presidents before him"; he is addressing a situation that didn't exist before, really: the rise of the internet and the fact that this enables not just good and honest people, but also criminals, terrorists, spies etc. Obama has been president for 8 years - in that time, these problems have grown exponentially. You might as well say "more people have died in road accidents since 1900 than in the tens of thousands of years that humanity has existed before 1900". Which is true - but it still paints a grossly distorted picture.
There's always a death ray, or plague, or something going to wipe out Earth, and the only way people survive and go about their lives is that they don't know about it.
-loosly paraphrased from MIB
This is the motto of the intelligence community, in a sense.
Jim Clapper will never get charged for lying to congress
Edward Snowden will never be pardoned for divulging illegal spying program.
Before that can happen, Obama would have to grow a pair.
Neither party has offered a compelling candidate for a long time now, and that's just how the 1% like it...
the traitor.
Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!
Clinton 2016!
Should I associate arrogant and clueless opinions with you? Just asking.
There are many legitimate reasons to condemn Snowden's actions, but too few of his fans* can tolerate criticism of him or engage in reasoned discussion about why his actions might be bad. Sadly mod points are easier to come by than understanding.
* Many outside the US, and at least some of them wishing harm to the US or other Western countries. Of those in the US many have mistaken ideas about the law or Constitution.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Obama pardoning Snowden is about as likely as Bill Clinton being a virgin.
You mean, it's at least conceivable that Obama pardons Snowden anally?
While we're listing people who he morally should pardon but realistically never would, I'd suggest every non-violent offender in prison for selling cannabis.
If Snowden was truly a patriot, he wouldn't have fled to become a tool of the US' competitors. Instead he's just a self-serving coward who stumbled upon something.
Snowden should have dumped the files on Wikileaks then appeared before Congress. He should have sat in jail with a public defender or gotten the ACLU or someone to back him; there are plenty of organizations that would. If he stayed in the spotlight he would be safe, and if he maintained the moral high ground the entire time a pardon would be in order. His flight to Russia, a known dictatorship who's government is known for worse crimes than he accused the US government of and who even murders it's detractors even when they're in another country, completely undermined his legitimacy and maintenance of the moral high ground, and as such he can rot freezing his butt off in his Soviet-era concrete block apartment for the rest of his life for all I care.
Because Obama was the one who instructed Snowden to do what he did thus fundamentally transforming this country.
Edward Snowden is a patriot. He should be made the head of the NSA so he blow that sucker up.
Maybe if he pardons anyone, it should be the NSA. He should give Snowden a medal for his service to the people of this country and exposing the betrayal we have faced by the intelligence services that would build Stasi 2.0 right on our own soil.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
BeauHD is a half-wit. "Not only would it contradict his national security policy, but it will severely alienate the intelligence community for many years to come. With that said, anyone who values a free and secure internet believes pardoning Snowden would be the right thing to do."
Did I read that correctly?!? The poster (idiot) actually believes that not pardoning Snowden would alienate the intelligence community. Snowden HAD DONE THAT ALREADY when he released massive amounts of sensitive data. I do believe some of the data was safe to release but a rash and idiotic release of everything definitely was a breach or national security, unwarranted and completely wrong. I applaud him him for doing it but at the same it's virtually impossible to say he did not put national security in jeopardy.
Snowden is still working for the Obama administration, he was a spy and his mission was to make the world believe the NSA has more capabilities than they really have.
Of course Obama will "Pardon him", that was always in the plan.
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
I get the impression he'd be OK with that. The reason he gave for fleeing was not that he was afraid of doing jail time. There's a long history in this country of accepting punishment in jail as a matter of conscience. No, he was afraid of being put to death for treason, or worse put into the Bush-era torture system. If he thought he could be guaranteed neither of those would happen, I suspect he'd love to come back to the USA and face trial. Particularly a nice big public one.
Wow. What else can we shake out of a hierarchy of infinitesimals? Oh, yeah, the Drake equation.
With the proviso he could never work a government job again.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
"In the empire of lies, truth is treason." (Ron Paul)
Nah. Obama should move to Russia and move in with Snowden. Two criminals hiding from Justice in KGB Putins Russia.
Just think what would have happened to Snowden if he dumped Russian secrets as he did with Americas secrets. Putin doesn't give a crap about Socialshit PC.
That would be a first, and someone would be really happy:
- First time an enemy agent (FSB, ex-KGB) has avoided american justica AND has been applauded by the citizens of his target nation.
- First time an active enemy agent is "pardoned" and allowed to come back to US soil.
I'm sure Putin is just petting his cat while reading this stuff.
I remind you of the election of 2000. The broken dynamics of American elections tend to make every election (but especially each presidential election) into a horse race, no matter how vast the differences between the candidates.
By the way, I am not a Hillary lover. Nor a hater. I actually think she's better than the average politician in most ways, but she has been targeted for vilification to an amazing degree. To me the funniest part is that most of it was collateral vilification that would have been directed at her husband if he were not effectively retired from politics. Perhaps her worst problem is that she's more of a lawyer than a politician, and even the politicians don't like lawyers, notwithstanding the awkward reality that most of them are one.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
FACT: The State Department IG report said that "there are criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or destruction of Federal records" (page 57), repeating that "penalties exist for the unlawful removal or destruction of records" (page 48)
FACT: The report states, "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." (Page 23)
FACT: It is clear that she broke this law (the Federal Records Act).
There are lots of times when someone breaks the law but isn't charged or convicted. That doesn't mean they didn't break the law.
IG Report is here https://oig.state.gov/system/f...
Under whose request and authority do you think the Three Letter Agencies have been spying on us all? The President.
Who has, directly or indirectly, persecuted all whistleblowers in the last 15 years? The President.
Who built the security establishment of the modern era, in violation of all understandings of civil rights and freedom? The President.
I use the office rather than the person, most deliberately. Multiple Presidents have been involved and we need to de-personalize this debate. This isn't about personalities, or partisan issues, or election campaigns. It is about freedom and the Constitution. Would the Founding Fathers have approved? Will we regret the Panopticon in years to come? Did we become the very thing the terrorists and criminals say we were?
There's only one reason why the President would pardon Edward Snowden and that reason is respect. This isn't whole hearted, my team sort of respect either. This is the grudging respect given to an opponent who has either beaten you or forced a draw. Edward Snowden managed to make security overreach an issue, and none of the previous whistleblowers managed to do that (they were silenced through furtive and subversive means). Further, Edward Snowden evaded capture and imprisonment by the TLAs, and I guarantee you they very much wanted him. Edward Snowden even managed to leverage a prickly (opponent? rival? fair weather friend?) by seeking sanctuary in Russia, which is one of the strangest outcomes of this whole situation.
Thanks to our so-called leaders, Russia becomes the de-facto guardian of freedom, security and human rights in the Western world. Thanks, Mr. President!
Now show some respect and pardon Edward Snowden.
When has Obama even once ever done anything he should do? Asking a morally-corrupt cockroach to do something because it's "right" is doomed to failure. Don't even bother. Not unless Snowden gives ten million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. That'll get him a pardon real fast.
What makes the writer think Trump would not pardon Snowden? Snowden revealed government overstepping it's bounds, breaking the law, and lying about it to everyone, including congressional investigators. That's just the sort of thing Trump is campaigning against, or if you prefer, just the sort of thing Hillary has been doing whenever she gets the chance.
Trump might pardon him, and then put him in charge of the NSA, to put a leash on those crooks. Now that would put the deep state's panties in a wad.
1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. 14) Impersonation of known government officials/identity theft. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy. Sure, the Constitution guarantees the freedom to share more information in the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowjob likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers. People want to complain about the NSA and allegedly "spying" on them, but then they'll also complain about not feeling the government is doing enough to protect them from al Qaeda! The NSA is not "hiding" anything, but they'll be truly ineffective if EVERYONE knows what they're working on. They're not interested in photos of your baby or mom's recipes. Has NOBODY stopped for a moment and asked "why" the NSA has been doing what they're doing? Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots? Which would you prefer, "spying" on you or terrorism on you? Snowflake did what he did for the fame (for the escape from obscurity that everyone wants... although most average people simply use Facebook). http://www.newser.com/story/17...