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.
Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
So? I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less.
$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.
Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most states are not contested in presidential elections -- hence the term "swing state" for the rare few that are. Thus if you vote in a non-swing state, then voting for a 3rd party comes with little risk, and is a reasonable way to cast a protest vote.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Example: he revealed that we had an active tap on the office phone of the German Chancellor.
...That's illegal. Having an active tap on the office phone of the German chancellor is most certainly internationally illegal, and domestically illegal. We've agree not to do these sort of things and we were found out to be doing them anyway.
What do we call someone exposing a criminal activity? And what if he needs to violate some privacy concerns in order to do so?
Germany is not a military or political enemy but all countries are economic opponents.
That's some mighty fine double-think right there.
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
And THAT'S delusional. Do you really think Hilary would let that slide?
Yeah, the guy committed crimes to accomplish what he did. He rode roughshod all over the privacy rights of the US government. Ideally he'd be put on trial and we'd have a court determine what a just punishment would be. But sadly I do not trust my government to give him a fair trial. Indeed, there is a risk that he'd simply have an accident somewhere along the way.
And due to the overwhelming good achieved for the USA by heroic actions from a patriot, I'd like to see any convictions be pardoned. It might have been a kick in the pants for the US government, but it was a great win for the nation and the ideals it stands for.
putting lives at risk.
Who? What lives? Is the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, going to bust into the surveillance van parked outside her office and shoot the spooks with an MP7? That's an "economic opponent" as you said. No lives are at risk, just money. If that. What's really at risk is power. And we're supposed to have checks on that.