Jill Stein Pledges To Pardon Snowden and Appoint Him To Her Cabinet (zerohedge.com)

Iamthecheese writes: Trump hates him. Clinton misrepresented him. Most mainstream media outlets call him a traitor and worse. But if you vote Stein, Snowden will be in the presidential Cabinet. "The presumptive Green Party presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein promises to grant NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden -- who many describe as a true American hero -- not just a full pardon, but a promotion to the upper echelons of government should she win the White House," reports Zero Hedge. "[Snowden] has done an incredible service to our country at great cost to himself for having to live away from his family, his friends, his job, his network, to basically live as an expatriate," Stein asserted during a town hall live-streamed to supporters on her Facebook page, US Uncut reported. "I would say not only bring Snowden back, but bring him into my administration as a member of the Cabinet," she continued, "because we need people who are part of our national security administration who are really, very patriotic. If we're really going to protect our American security, we also have to protect our Constitutional rights, and that includes our right to privacy." Her pardons would also extend to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou and Chelsea Manning. Kiriakou first revealed proof of waterboarding and various other torture tactics employed by the government, while Manning leaked the Afghan War Diary and Iraq War Logs, which included footage of U.S. helicopter airmen deliberately gunning down journalists, to Wikileaks. Reddit co-founder and MIT student, Aaron Swartz, who leaked academic research to the public, would also receive a pardon under her presidency. "[Swartz] was a proponent of free and liberated internet and for sharing our resources on that internet, who was basically hounded into suicide by a very oppressive Department of Justice. So, he -- in my mind -- is another one of these heroes that we need to remember and be very thankful for."

Comments

Oh dear

[wonkey_monkey]

Jill Stein Pledges To Pardon Snowden

Yeah, I can see how that might actually be a worthy thing to od.

and Appoint Him To Her Cabinet

Ah, she ruined it. She's obviously just whoring for votes.

Re: Oh dear

[ArmoredDragon]

The Schwartz bit is not true at all. The majority of research would have already been funded by at least one taxpayer funding source, only to be swept up and locked away. That is not right. For that alone, Schwartz's actions were just.

If all taxpayer funded research belonged to the public domain, then our military would be at a huge tactical disadvantage, among a ton of other problems.

Re:Oh dear

[rtb61]

So a person that gave up all his power and salary to protect the citizens he felt he should represent is a bad person for cabinet? So based upon you claim, seriously you hugely stupid claim as an American, the founding fathers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution) should all have been hung, drawn and quartered and absolutely never have gained positions in government and anyone who said they should is a whore.

Dr Jill Stein has shown the same courage as the founding fathers in making a profound policy decision that goes against the oligarchy and the current power institution in the military industrial complex. Would Edward Snowden do a good job in cleaning up the corruption of the self serving and hugely over powered intelligence services, probably, if he survived long enough.

Reality is the next US election is a complete fuck up. With the least hated individual to be elected by a minority that bothered to show up, the only enthusiasm will be in the Libertarian and Green party. With many from the Republicans and Democrats intending to stay how because they have nothing but shit to vote for, apart from those who will protest vote Libertarian and Green, they will be out in droves as well as party die hards.

The next election is the one, that who ever wins will wish they didn't and due to deep social reach of primaries getting many unstable fringe elements involved in politics and then being betrayed yet again, well, the Secret Service and the FBI will really have their work cut out for them keeping that talking head chuppa chup alive. Making millions our of the white house corporate media channel. What a mess it will be.

Re:So much for rule of law

[0100010001010011]

He could have reported the problem to his corporate managers,

That worked so well for Thomas Drake.

the process for intelligence oversight mostly works really well

Citation Needed

Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon Snowden... Stein got off on the right foot there. Sounds good so far...

Unfortunately, she shoved the other one in her mouth. She's in favor of "homeopathic medicine", and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite. Furthermore, she wants "a moratorium on GMOs", which wikipedia states, "There is a scientific consensus[147][148][149][150] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food".

I REALLY want to vote third party, but we need some third party candidates who are not anti-science crackpots. I thought she might be pro-science, but apparently not.

It's really too bad. I'd be totally on the side of a pro-environment and pro-civil rights party, something akin to a blend of green and libertarian. Bring Snowden back, stop spying on everyone, and don't trash the environment. Could be so good! However, they keep putting up unelectable nutcases :-/. This election could be THE golden opportunity for third parties, because the D and R candidates are both strongly disliked across the political spectrum. It's not that they would be likely to win, but they could become a force to be reckoned with and position themselves to gain mindshare in the future. But not by being "pro homeopathy" and generally come across like crackpots.

Sigh. We need some real alternatives to Republicans and Democrats. "Real" being the key word.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[fustakrakich]

There is a fourth candidate, you know. And he is relatively "normal" with some time in the trenches. He's on the ballot in all 50 states, and he tracks a bit higher than Stein. He makes a damn good alternative to Trump. Let's turn the election into a battle between Clinton and Johnson.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[NotInHere]

Its nice to live in this dream world where there are other alternatives than the two major party candidates, but its not real. If he did well, Jonson would make 5% of the vote. Those 5% are more likely to come from Clinton than from trump. Clinton would miss the 5%, meaning that Trump would win more likely. So voting for any candidate than the "lesser evil" doesn't bring you anything, but in fact has a negative effect.

The only way to fix this is to change the system. Give voters papers where they can fill in priorities, with priority one two three etc. The system is called STV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The voters then will be free to support any candidate they want, regardless of strategy.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[markdavis]

STV is not the only want to fix the system. Just about any type of ranked/preferential voting would be 1,000 times better than what we use now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Another such example is instant runoff voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Then we could truly vote the way we want, rather than voting against who we don't want because we are always afraid of a worse outcome. Unfortunately, the RepubliCrats (the collective term I use for Democrats and Republicans) will never allow this to happen, because they don't want to give voters real choice.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[epine]

STV is not the only want to fix the system. Just about any type of ranked/preferential voting would be 1,000 times better than what we use now.

Yes, first-past-the-post is the worst form of voting, including all the others (modulo coercion).

But really, you can't fix the electoral process without also fixing how legislation is tabled (death to the omnibus bill), otherwise a truly representative congress becomes gridlocked on process.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[Kjella]

But not by being "pro homeopathy" and generally come across like crackpots. Sigh. We need some real alternatives to Republicans and Democrats. "Real" being the key word.

The more I read about US politics, the more I realize that what would ordinarily be normal parties here in Norway are the factions within the democrats and republicans, while the fringe crackpots are the same. Imagine a system with:

Democratic Party
Liberal Party
Socialist Party
Republican Party
Tea Party
Christian Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party

It would be not entirely unlike our parliament. Anything above 4% nationally gets proportional representation (19/169 representatives are held in a pool for this purpose), under 4% you'd have to get a direct vote from your area (the other 150/169). Coalitions are common and usually center around the main "left" or "right" party but who is in and who is out varies. In the US you have the same factions but first they make a red and blue coalition that they call a party, then they put it to a vote.

As long as you got a "first past the post" system, nothing matters unless you get a majority so first you must become part of something that could get a majority, then you can try pulling it in the direction you want. That's why we see candidates like Sanders, Trump, Ron Paul etc. join the main parties even if they're way on the fringes. Nobody's going to be able to change that without changing the electorate system and the keys to that is firmly locked up by the two parties that like their pseudo-monopoly on being the red and blue pill.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[Halo1]

She's in favor of "homeopathic medicine",

That seems to be a little simplistic, given that she apparently even got the Green Party to remove all mentions of homeopathy from their platform. That said, pure placebo's (such as homeopathy, VR and even the colour of pills) can have their use either separately from (in case of e.g. a hypochondriac) or in combination with regular treatment.

and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite.

If you take into account all of the government subsidies, including covering the industry's uninsurable risks, I'm not sure whether at least the cost argument holds.

Furthermore, she wants "a moratorium on GMOs", which wikipedia states, "There is a scientific consensus[147][148][149][150] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food".

While she indeed argues against it because of safety arguments, there are plenty of other reasons why many people are against GMOs. Just look at the majority of comments on the Slashdot story regarding one of the "GMOs are safe" studies.

I REALLY want to vote third party, but we need some third party candidates who are not anti-science crackpots.

Bashing using arguments that are either easily refuted, or at the very least less clear cut than presented, is anti-science. Name-calling while posting as AC is just silly.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Those 5% are more likely to come from Clinton than from trump. Clinton would miss the 5%, meaning that Trump would win more likely. So voting for any candidate than the "lesser evil" doesn't bring you anything, but in fact has a negative effect.

Only in a swing-state. On the other hand, if you live in a state that will absolutely go D or R, you can vote for whomever the heck you want. You would not effectively be robbing votes from anyone. But you would be going on record as giving a big "F U" to the D's or R's.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[phantomfive]

There is too much division around Trump for him to get enough votes.

The trend in the polls is moving in Trump's favor, with some polls showing Trump even with Clinton, or outright ahead. CBS/NYT is a tie, Rasmussen is Trump with a clear lead, Economist/Yougov within a margin of error.

Of course, Clinton had a bad couple weeks, so that may a temporary thing, but it could also be part of a longer trend. I really think things will start to crystallize once the debates happen, because that will push people into their animalistic "us against them" mode.

Re:Well, I _wanted_ to like her.

[Halo1]

and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite.

If you take into account all of the government subsidies, including covering the industry's uninsurable risks, I'm not sure whether at least the cost argument holds.

You forgot that it's the only form of energy that's currently regulated to include all of externalities in its cost.

No, since for nuclear a bunch of externalities are covered by the government at a rate that is below what the market is willing to offer (since the market doesn't want to cover them at all).

For a fair comparison, you'd need to require coal to catch everything (CO2, sulphur, other toxins, more radioactive isotopes than a nuclear plant, etc)
  from all chimneys, transport and store that securely for hundreds of years.

I doubt Jill Stein is very much in favour of coal fired plants.

And despite that, nuclear is still competitive and causes many orders of magnitude less deaths.

Competitive with massive government subsidies, yes. Of course, coal also gets lots of subsidies.

Re:Unfortunately.....

[flopsquad]

EVERYBODY hates Jill Stein...

I doubt most people know enough about her to hate her. Maybe you were thinking of Ben Stein? Or Frankenstein?

Re:Candidate Who Won't Win a Single Precinct

[PolygamousRanchKid]

makes campaign promise she will never have to fulfill. Film at 11. :rolleyes: Snowden should be pardoned, but this would only be credible coming from one of the two mainstream candidates.

The government in the USA has been carefully crafted and evolved into a two party system. Both the Democrats and Republicans like it that way, and have no reason to change that.

Hell, 10% of the country could vote Green, and what representation would they get? Nothing.

Even Bernie just sold out to Clinton. When she gets elected, all assurances she made to Bernie will get flushed down the toilet.

Can we somehow bring in Dave Cameron as a "dark horse" candidate? I know, he wasn't born as a USA citizen, but these days, it seems everything stated in the Constitution can be fudged.

Re:Unfortunately.....

[fustakrakich]

What do you have against Frankenstein?

Re:So much for rule of law

[penguinoid]

Repeat after me, if the bad apples remain after being found, it is not just a few bad apples. Everyone is complicit.

You do realize the saying is not, "Feel free to leave the bad apples there, so long as only a few of them are moldy and oozing juices all over the others it doesn't matter because the rest remain good." You're only allowed to call them "a few bad apples" without looking like a moron, if they are treated like bad apples are treated.

Re:So much for rule of law

[johanw]

A presidential pardon is also rule of law if the congress passed it. And further I think your post shows the same "befehl ist befehl" mentality that didn't work as an excuse in the Nurenberg trials.

Re:So much for rule of law

[markdavis]

>"Believe it or not, the process for intelligence oversight mostly works really well."

Oh really. So secretive oversight by government officials of secretive things done by government officials "mostly works really well"? And how are we to know this?

Re:So much for rule of law

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is classified.

Re:Sure....

[fustakrakich]

Nobody's perfect

Why Such Limited Coverage for Other Parties?

[Feneric]

Liking her or hating her is fine, but people should at least know about her and the other "third-party" candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, Gary Johnson. In an election where there are a record majority number of people dissatisfied with the candidates being offered up by both the big parties, the media ought to be doing a better job of covering the alternatives.

Re:So much for rule of law

[silas_moeckel]

Morally right trumps lawful every time. That's why we have jury nullification. He exposed criminal activity by the administration.

Re:So much for rule of law

[Uberbah]

But he cannot claim he shouldn't be served the treatment for such a decision.

Ah, yes, demanding whisteblowers face the law, while flatly ignoring the lawbreaking revealed by those whisteblowers. The penalty for violating FISA is punishable by up to 5 years and prison, and a $10,000 fine. Given the length and scale of NSA wiretapping, that probably means billions of years in collective prison time, and hundreds of trillions in fines, if FISA was enforced. Funny how you fascists are never demanding those laws be applied to the executive branch and the sort of contractor Snowden worked for.

Snowden could have done it otherwise.

No, he couldn't. Just ask John Kiriakou, who was investigating the CIA for torture and had his investigation shut down by "appropriate channels".

Re: Unfortunately.....

[fustakrakich]

Actually the last name would probably be "Normal", first name "Abby"

So much for critical thought

[Uberbah]

I don't dispute that Snowden did a public service in the end. However, he also broke the law and for that there should be consequences.

And the lawbreaking Snowden reported on? Why aren't you guys demanding every employee of the NSA be hauled into court, right on up through the executive branch to the president himself? Why aren't you demanding Obama be charged with 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each instance of illegal warrantless wiretapping?

And why don't you authoritarians give two shits about the Constitution? If you did work for the government, you took the same Oath of Office that Snowden, Manning, Drake, and Kirkarou did. The only way for those men to uphold their oaths was to violate the laws protecting obscenely unconstitutional actions, like the NSA's warrantless wiretapping and the CIA's torture program.

Re:So much for rule of law

[jmcvetta]

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

-- MLK, from his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"