Slashdot Mirror
Gary Johnson: I'd Consider Pardoning Snowden, Chelsea Manning (vocativ.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Vocativ: [Vocativ reports:] "The U.S.'s most popular third-party presidential candidate says he would 'consider' pardoning the highest profile convicts of computer-related crimes in the country, including Chelsea Manning, Ross Ulbricht, and Jeremy Hammond. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, also reiterated his possible willingness to pardon Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency analyst who gave a cache of agency documents to journalists in 2013." "Having actually served as a governor and administered the power to grant pardons and clemency, Gary Johnson is very conscious and respectful of the need for processes for using that authority," Joe Hunter, Johnson's communications director, told Vocativ in a statement. "However, he has made it clear on numerous occasions that he would 'look seriously at' pardoning Edward Snowden, based on public information that Snowden's actions did not cause actual harm to any U.S. intelligence personnel. Likewise, he has said he would look favorably on pardoning Ross Ulbricht, consistent with his broader and long-standing commitment to pardon nonviolent drug offenders, whistleblowers, and others imprisoned under unjust and ill-advised laws," Hunter said. When Vocativ asked specifically about Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown, and Matthew Keys, Hunter responded: "The same goes for the other individuals you have mentioned -- and hundreds, if not thousands, like them. Gov. Johnson finds it to be an outrage that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, and announced in 2012 that, as President, he would promptly commence the process of pardoning nonviolent offenders who have done no real harm to others." The Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also shared her thoughts on pardoning Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Not only would she pardon Snowden, but she said she would appoint him to her cabinet.
Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties." [P.S. Ruckman, Jr. 1997. "Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993)," 27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271]
Granting amnesty and calling it a "pardon" is legit. No conviction required.
If only people realized that voting FOR someone you agree with is less of a waste than voting AGAINST someone you don't agree with. Voting 3rd party isn't a wasted vote if you are more in line with that party that the main 2.
I would like to agree with you, but I suggest you look up the phenomenon called the Spoiler Effect.
CGP Grey has very well-done 6.5-minute video about it here, which is also worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In summary: A 3rd party candidate is statistically more likely to be closer in ideology to one of the two major parties.
If you have primary parties A and B, and C is the 3rd party, C is probably more like B than A (for this example). If you and I vote for C because we hate A and like C better than B, our votes didn't count for B. So instead of a vote being a 49% A and 51% B vote, it may well turn out 49% A, 41% B, and 10% C. Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win. It took me some fifteen years to come to that realization, and it is still depressing. The only way C wins is if C can either pull enough votes from A and B, or draws all of B's votes. It could and has happened, but it's extraordinarily rare. Usually A or B will adopt the the strongest primary platform of C to keep those votes for themselves.
it may well turn out 49% A, 41% B, and 10% C. Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
That's exactly what happened in 1992. Without Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote we would have forgotten all about Bill Clinton by now, and never would have seen the bubbles he brought on and the subsequent recessions that we still haven't recovered from.
It's always in your interest to vote for the candidate closest to your preferences, even if they're not all that close. Because that influences the next candidate in the next election far more than a 3rd party candidate getting a couple of percent.
>"As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win"
This. +1
Our system makes it essentially IMPOSSIBLE for any non Republicrat to win in major elections. Until we change the voting system to something *SANE* that allows voters to RANK the candidates, we can't really change anything else. We end up voting AGAINST the major party we don't like instead of FOR the party we might want.
Imagine what would be possible if voters this year had the ability to RANK candidates from all the parties. People could rank some other party first with ZERO fear they are throwing their votes away. The outcome might be shocking.... especially if we knew we could do this a long time ago and drummed up more candidates.
http://fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Snowden is not a traitor for revealing the NSA Phone surveillance program. He's a traitor for the thousands of classified documents pertaining to other legitimate intelligence collection efforts that he stole and turned over to whomever. Example: he revealed that we had an active tap on the office phone of the German Chancellor. Revealing that was Treason, Germany is not a military or political enemy but all countries are economic opponents. Further it's evident that he's paid Russia for his asylum with classified information.
That is why he is considered a Traitor. Had he just stuck to revealing the unconstitutional NSA Surveillance of US citizens he would be a hero and would have been protected by Whistleblower status. But he revealed far more, damaging or destroying operations that took years to put in place and putting lives at risk.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.