Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gary Johnson: I'd Consider Pardoning Snowden, Chelsea Manning (vocativ.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the high-profile-convicts dept.

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.

9 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Since neither is getting elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Since neither is getting elected, How Nice.
    Manning was a serviceman that took an oath, if that is meaning less.
    Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.

    1. Re:Since neither is getting elected by kruug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowden is only a traitor if the government considers American citizens as enemies...

    2. Re:Since neither is getting elected by kruug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Since neither is getting elected by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DC politicians are the traitors. They routinely pass law that violates the constitution, they've made it clear they're willing to sell our liberty to the highest bidders, and they are willing to prevaricate about it on camera. Fuck them.

    4. Re:Since neither is getting elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Yes, if you prefer a quarterly profit and then bankruptcy over long term growth.

      Voting for a third party impacts politics even if that party doesn't win. It sends a message to the runner up that there are votes to gain by adopting a few third party questions.
      Voting for the lesser evil only tells the two major parties that they need to be more like each other if they want more votes.
      A vote for the lesser evil is a vote to make it become the greater evil, that is why you now have two large parties that only wants to screw you over.

    5. Re:Since neither is getting elected by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.

      It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.

      If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Since neither is getting elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Further it's evident that he's paid Russia for his asylum with classified information.

      [citation needed]

      He has claimed that he brought no information with him after he left Hong Kong. Russia is allowing him to stay because it amuses them the trouble he's causing the US / Five Eyes.

      Can you layout the reasoning you used to come to your conclusion?

  2. +1 Snowden, Manning. -1 Ulbricht by saccade.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Snowden & Manning are whistle-blowers. They were motivated by correcting what the perceived as illegal or immoral actions by the government. They had little to personally gain (and a lot to lose) by their actions. Ulbricht, on the other hand was motivated by greed. His willingness to commission murder-for-hire in order to keep his cash machine going justifies his conviction.

  3. Bundy Ranch Standoff by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmm..... a 1,000 Armed Americans, the largest militia formed in probably over a hundred years. And the Feds backed down....cause they were sure to get their butts kicked. Or forced it to escalate into a military confrontation which could have started a civil war.

    As for the U.S. being undefeatable by it's citizens. Goat farmers with hand made AKs and improvised bombs defeated the mighty U.S. in two wars. So I wager a nation in which civilians have far better arms would do quite well against the government if it mobilized. Furthermore, much of the military would fracture when ordered to bomb U.S. cities and civilians.