ACLU Is Launching A Campaign To Convince President Obama To Pardon Edward Snowden (fusion.net)

Coinciding with the launch of Oliver Stone's movie Snowden in select theaters this week, a coalition of civil rights groups are launching a campaign to convince President Obama to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Fusion reports: The effort, which is organized by the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, will gather signatures from regular people and endorsements from celebrities. Snowden will speak by video link from Moscow at a press conference on Wednesday morning in New York, and an initial list of "prominent legal scholars, policy experts, human rights leaders, technologists and former government officials" in support of the cause will be released, according to a statement from the campaign. A presidential pardon would mean that Snowden could come home from Moscow, where he's lived for the past three years, without the fear of being prosecuted. He currently faces federal charges of violating the Espionage Act and stealing government property, even though his disclosures led to reform of the wiretapping program by Congress. Many Snowden supporters are hoping the movie Snowden, which opens in U.S. theaters on Friday, will spur support for a pardon. "I think the value of the movie is that it's lsikely to reach millions of people who have not been paying close attention to Snowden or to the debate about surveillance and privacy," Snowden's layer at the ACLU, Ben Wizner, told Fusion. "Those people will emerge from the movie more educated about surveillance and with more positive attitudes toward Snowden."

Comments

The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

and would be in many other countries. Can you imagine him still alive in China, Russia, etc?

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberty and justice are 2 key elements that are supposed to differentiate the USA from those other countries.

I'm guessing you're trolling, but unfortunately so many people actually share this viewpoint. Most of them are uneducated, government/military shills, or just scared of the terrorism boogeyman that has been touted as a justification to strip freedom from citizens.

Snowden did the country and incredible service by unveiling the extent to which the government has over reached its authority.

It would be a huge win if Obama pardoned Snowden, but I have a hard time actually seeing that happen. Obama seems to be too attached to the intelligence community, and this would be seen as a stab in the back.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[guruevi]

Yes, because China and Russia are great examples of free countries where people have the constitutional freedoms of the US. It's gotten pretty far that people are now demanding or expecting the US government to act in a way a dictatorship does.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[naris]

Actually, he is still alive in Russia!

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

While I do not believe that he should be executed, I believe that he did massive harm to the US intelligence apparatus, and was led astray by greenwald, who for all intents and purposes behaves like a handler from the fsb

snowden is a sad, sad story about what happens when you fall into the clutches of people whose first concern is self-promotion

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both correct.

He did a service by revealing the government's spying on US citizens.

He then massively compromised our ability to spy on our adversaries by revealing techniques and tools used for spying on them.

So go ahead and pin the medal on him... then walk him out to the firing squad.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[markdavis]

>"Yes, because China and Russia are great examples of free countries where people have the constitutional freedoms of the US."

There is a certain amount of irony in that statement, considering the paths the USA has been taking so often.... the "unpatriot act", the trend to electronic censorships, attacks on gun rights, the endless spying on citizens, the use of searching without probable cause, the misuse of "interstate commerce" to justify just about any law, the tons and tons of Federal programs and laws that are rights reserved to only the States, misuse of the Executive order to make law that is clearly the realm of the Legislative branch, secret lists that deprive citizens of their rights without due process, seizure of property without oversight, trials that take years to start which are certainly not "speedy", cruel and unusual punishments while incarcerated, I could go on, but you get the idea.

The Constitutional freedoms of the US have never been under more attack. Given time, how much like China and Russia will things turn out? So many people act like the Constitution is an outdated list of guidelines or suggestions, and not the rule book... just something that can just be ignored when not convenient or when people scream for more "safety" or just twisted to mean whatever is fashionable at the moment.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

And I would argue that your view is naive and cant be maintained.

He did do a huge service. He had to sacrifice to get that info out. What did he sacrifice? Hes citizenship at the very least. His life by the law. He committed Treason. There is no excuse, no "okay, this time it was okay". Treason. While you approve of what he let out, how he did it and why he did it make him a traitor. We need to stop glorifying him.

Remember as you worship him - He gave our enemies the same information if not MORE.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, he *is* still alive in Russia. Small detail.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[fnj]

Whatever China and Russia are, neither is a dictatorship. That is an ignorant characterization.

The President of China (head of state; mostly a figurehead) is elected by the National People's Congress, which in turn is elected by an interesting hierarchical election system, ultimately by the people. The Premier (leader of the State Council; head of government) is nominated by the President and approved by the Congress.

Russia is a multi-party state; more so than the US. The President is elected by the people. He appoints the Prime Minister. The Federal Assembly (Parliament) has two houses: the Duma, elected by proportional representation, and the Federation Council, whose members are separately selected by 85 "federal subjects" (very loosely analogous to "states" in the US) - similar to the original method of selection to the US Senate.

Sure, China has a shadow government in the form of the Communist Party, which controls the selection of those who stand for election Congress. Big deal. The USA has a shadow government in the form of the Demopublican establishment, with a death grip on the selection of those who stand for election to Congress and for President.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama should make him a knight but cut off two of his fingers.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

He also did it an incredible disservice be revealing foreign intelligence gathering. That makes him a traitor.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the actual intent of the OP was

Can you imagine him still alive in China, Russia, etc... if he had been a member of their security apparatus and sold their secrets to another nation.

ftfy, because Russia is pretty notorious for killing off ex-pats

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[saloomy]

Thats the wrong question. The better question is: How much harm has the apparatus done to our freedoms and economy? Europe will no longer trust its data in our hands, and much of the world becomes more adversarial. Is nothing sacred anymore? I shutter to think of the day our thoughts can be digitized, stored, analyzed, and archived.

As for the "intelligence apparatus" and its usefulness... Please. To do what? Protect human life? Congress could save more human beings THIS WEEK in the US by banning tobacco and classifying nicotine a narcotic.

Deaths due to terrorism since 1995 in the US: 3,264 (source)
Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source)

I should mention that although smoking kills 10,000 people a week, I don't support banning it, since that would require taking away our liberties and freedoms. But so does government surveillance, and I would ban that. Its too expensive, doesn't protect all that much life, and tramples on our ideology.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[BarbaraHudson]

The ubiquitous spying was known long before snowden.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

And I assume you are also wanting the agents who work for the NSA to be brought to justice for their illegal activity? If Edward Snowden is to be charged as a traitor then other individuals currently working for the NSA also need to be charged with treason, their broad net spying means they have been spying on the Government, on Political candidates which also amounts to treason are they also going to be brought to justice?

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Your CDC link talks about deaths caused by smoking, NOT second-hand smoke.

Everyone knows (has known for ~40 years now) that smoking kills at a tremendous rate, the dangers of second-hand smoke are much less clear cut. The CDC's best (most alarming) guess at the effect is 2.5 million people since 1964. That's a little under 1000 a week.

And even that figure is derived by assuming that every single death of a nonsmoker caused by smoking-related diseases is directly caused by secondhand smoke (i.e. the natural incidence of lung cancer, etc., in the population would be zero if not for smoking), which is an extremely suspect assumption.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[saloomy]

From the site:

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure . This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[LWATCDR]

No he should not be shot but he is a traitor.
It comes down to this. President Obama should be in jail or Snowden. Which is it?
Frankly no contractor or military personal has the right to decide that they know what is better for the nation the elected government.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And it's unbelievable that this year they chose Trump and Clinton. Are they taunting us???

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

So this sounds good in theory, but it's not.
In this defense you have justified his actions with a completely unrelated issue, and not on his own merits. He violated the law, the public trust, and any basic sense of decency that would have created a justifiable defense because his disclosures were NOT evidence of any criminal activity. He didn't even ATTEMPT to use the legal process that he admitted was readily available to him. Moreover, he fully admitted (to John Oliver) that *he didn't even read most of the documents* before disclosing them. Loose lips still sink ships, and it's entirely likely that people were killed as a result.

Then, when it was all said and done, he ran away to that bastion of freedom, Russia to criticize and opine for money while the world's most heavily nuclear armed authoritarian hell-hole on a conquest spree uses that information not for Freedom, but to figure out how to better spoof, or hide from our attempts to prevent them from overrunning our allies in Western Europe. Way to go Captain America, let me find you a medal.

You are ascribing heroic attributes to somebody that fundamentally was just an attention-seeking con-man.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Pseudonym]

Can you imagine him still alive in China, Russia, etc... if he had been a member of their security apparatus and sold their secrets to another nation.

"Sold" is obviously the wrong word here.

But to answer your question: If he had been a member of Russia's security apparatus, and he had blown the whistle, and he had escaped to the United States, then whether or not he was still alive would largely depend on how famous he was. Solzhenitsyn managed to die of old age.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you and everyone like you are traitors to the United States and should be executed. Edward Snowden is a patriot and hero.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

So were our founding fathers of this country...

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

He committed Treason.

Actually, it's the intelligence agencies that committed Treason. They obeyed the wishes of America's enemies in their goal to strip all Americans of their Constitutional rights, in order to weaken American and make it more vulnerable.

Snowden was a whistleblower. By definition, all whistleblowers of the government's security apparatus are lawbreakers. If you want nobody to break the law, then you must therefore disallow all such whistleblowers.

I prefer to live in a world where whistleblowers are allowed, even if it results in some lawbreaking. I have no problem with some kinds of lawbreaking. For example, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for his crimes, so I believe some criminals have the potential to be great and good people.

At tremendous personal risk to himself, Snowden needed to engage in criminal actions in order to expose the Treason of the government's security apparatus. In the process of uncovering the Treason, there was some collateral damage, due to the exposure of some sensitive intelligence. To call that collateral damage "Treason" is to willfully ignore the true perpetrators of the Treason: the rogue intelligence officials whose crimes are of a much more massive scale, and whose victims number in the hundreds of millions.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[currently_awake]

We already know Obama wants Snoden in jail. The NSA works for him directly, he could end all the "Issues" by simply ordering them stopped. If he approves of what is happening (he chooses to allow it to continue=approval) then he must oppose those who work to end those practices.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[TranquilVoid]

Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source)

That's the deaths from all smoking. According to your link the annual U.S. deaths from second-hand smoke totals 42,000, which is 115 per day.

More interesting is the comparison, that for every 10 deaths of smokers there is 1 death by second-hand smoke. That's higher than I would have thought.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[saloomy]

You are right! My math skills must be slipping. I stand corrected. It doesn't invalidate my point though.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[thrich81]

"The Constitutional freedoms of the US have never been under more attack" -- man, they need to teach history better in the schools. Constitutional freedoms have always been under attack -- consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the House Un-American Activities Committee (1938 to 1975), the FBI under Hoover. And that's not even considering that for most of the USA's existence constitutional freedoms were regularly denied to persons of the wrong race. Things are no worse than before, and better for a lot of Americans. It's just that everyone now thinks they are special. The civil libertarians have always had work to do, and always will.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

You, like snowden, are a naive fool. Russia is just as much a democracy as north korea. The elections are shams, and putin is a plutocrat, not a democratically elected leader. China is more complex, but candidates must be approved by the party, so it's hardly a representative democracy.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[quenda]

And you are ignoring the much larger numbers of people killed by the US intelligence apparatus outside the country.
Including thousands of Americans killed in Iraq because of those Weapons of Mass Destruction "found" by the intelligence apparatus. (And not a few locals.)

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[cold fjord]

Whatever China and Russia are, neither is a dictatorship. That is an ignorant characterization.

Sure, China has a shadow government in the form of the Communist Party, which controls the selection of those who stand for election Congress. Big deal. The USA has a shadow government in the form of the Demopublican establishment, with a death grip on the selection of those who stand for election to Congress and for President.

China is in essence a one-party communist dictatorship.* If you debate that the ignorance is yours no matter how interesting you find the apparatus.

The Communist Party isn't just a "shadow government," it is a pervasive ruling party whose edicts are backed up by the secret police. And note that it is the Communist Party that controls the military, not the government.

It appears that in Russia the rules will be adjusted to let Putin rule as long as he cares to.

*Spare me the "patriotic front" argument.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw what a load of crap

The "intelligence apparatus" was put together during and after WW2 (a conflict which cost about 60 million lives) as a means to prevent WW3, that had a projected cost of hundreds of millions of lives. They were facing really high risks and were determined to create electronic eavesdropping capabilities that would help reduce them. The Supreme Court was supportive via Smith v Maryland, which allowed for tracking calls without a warrant, and predated most of the capabilities that came to light from snowden.

It was not created to chase a few "terrists" around the desert, even if squashing them became the cause celebre after the failures to identify and stop the 9-11 crew, and the infringements on our privacy (yeah, privacy demands from people addicted to facebook postings, what a load) should be weighed against the threat of a WW2 or larger conflict which the system was designed to stop.

As far as your rightfully high nicotine deaths, they are borne largely at end-off life and represent more of an acceleration of the aging process than anything, while the conflicts which electronic eavesdropping was designed to stop would involve the deaths of a majority of young adults, who get to run into gunfire at our behest.

So, I am glad that you enjoy your freedoms, I do as well, but you seem to have little understanding of how they have managed to survive, or what work people have put into preserving them... both from the standpoints of the ACLU and NSA

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

selling out for notoriety is "Sold" all the same, although greenwald has really come out far ahead on this one.

And... ask yourself why everybody knows how toxic polonium and ricin are (big hint: that is how the highest profile Russian ex-pats have died, although numerically more get it from defenestration or just shot)

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

"How much harm has the apparatus done to our freedoms and economy? Europe will no longer trust its data in our hands,"

With all due respect, please don't confuse harm with education. Welcome to the second grade Europe.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

"It was not created to chase a few "terrists" around the desert, even if squashing them became the cause celebre after the failures to identify and stop the 9-11 crew, and the infringements on our privacy (yeah, privacy demands from people addicted to facebook postings, what a load) should be weighed against the threat of a WW2 or larger conflict which the system was designed to stop."

Sure, just as soon as there is some kind of reason to believe it has in any way done anything even remotely like stop WWIII. Or the deaths of anyone. Nothing that has been declassified since WWII has done so. The intelligence community is almost certainly directly responsible for emnities behind 9/11 and many many more deaths, the number domestically are dwarfed by the numbers abroad, even if you count everyone who has died as a consequence of introducing crack cocaine into domestic poor neighborhoods to create a market that could be used to fund slush funds and black arms trade, with no indication it has saved lives it didn't imperil in the first place.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

Known but not to the general public and not proven. Not that it did much good. The congressional reform just gave congressional blessing to most of this illegal activity, I say illegal because congress lacks the Federal government lacks the constitutional authority to legalize these behaviors.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

He committed treason against the united states government in order to reveal treason against the people of the united states, a yet higher authority. Breaking the law in order to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice is an affirmative defense and a valid argument under the law.

Punishing this man would send a message discouraging other whistle blowers from doing what he did. That would be a very terrible thing.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[markdavis]

I said they have never been more under attack, but I wasn't trying to imply they haven't always been under attack (I just think it is accelerating). I agree with everything you said!!

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

Attacks on gun rights? What attacks on gun rights have there been?

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

One more, "trials that take years to start which are certainly not 'speedy'." IANAL but if your case takes over 60 days to start the judge will let you off. That is, unless the Republicans have stopped the President from appointing judges in your district. Then it can be extended to up to a year.

If you are talking about civil cases, the constitution doesn't mention them. No guarentee there.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Dutch Gun]

The USA has a shadow government in the form of the Demopublican establishment, with a death grip on the selection of those who stand for election to Congress and for President.

Trump is anything but the Republican party elite's nominee of choice.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

Say what? Putin kills or impressions people who run against him and have any chance of winning. Only the approved crazies get to run against him.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[bjdevil66]

If you think that the USA is the same as China or Russia in terms of free elections, shadow governments, and levels of oppression and tyranny, I have some polonium-flavored tea brewed by Tibetian monks I'd like you to try...

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[markdavis]

Surely you jest.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

Nope.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

a google search turned up nothing.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[dwillden]

Yes he did us a great service, but then destroyed that by revealing much more, revealing extensive details of many legitimate intelligence collection efforts that did not violate US law but were actually fully within the scope and mission of the NSA.

It's not the phone surveillance program reveal that he is facing charges for. (He might be facing charges for those as well but can claim whistleblower status and most likely win against those charges.) It's all the other secrets he revealed to the world and to his Russian hosts to pay for his asylum.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[silentcoder]

Check the Fox News site. Didn't you know the government is taken everybody's guns ? No really. Bunch of jackbooted government thugs showed up at my cousin's place in Shitville Idaho and took her guns. No really. It happened. Told her the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to an S-300 Surface to Air Missile launcher. She said she uses it to go duck hunting but would they listen ?

By this time next week you won't be able to carry an AK-47 gun into Arby's and scare the kids without some government thug showing up cause the 'owner called the police because he thought he was being robbed' and shooting you ... I mean, seriously, that's only supposed to happen to black people ! And on Friday, they'll come collect them from your house. Honest! My niecedaughter told me !

Okay. Getting serious. Just a couple of months ago a man, guilty of no crime, was pulled over in a 'routine traffic stop'. He happened to be black. He had a gun, which he legally owned. He informed the cop that he had a, legal, gun and did absolutely nothing violent - obeying the officer completely. When the officer asked for 'license and registration' he reached for it... and was promptly shot dead. All this was captured on video - we have undeniable proof of what happened. Now you would THINK that the NRA would be up in arms about this. For once there we have an example of an ACTUAL assault on gun rights - when cops shoot you for having a gun you legally own and informed them you had with you. A gun you did not threaten them with, or commit any crime with. This actually WAS an assault on gun rights (that it was yet another black man killed by a cop is another matter).
And what ... crickets. Not a single response from the NRA. No press release. No protest. No rally. No mention on their website. Not so much as a fucking tweet.

The NRA may have gotten a tiny glimmer of sympathy from me - if they were acting against genuine oppression of legitimate gun owners - all of them, that includes black people in traffic stops.
If they wouldn't stand up for him - then nothing they DO stand up for is worth protecting.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[MitchDev]

The man is a hero and should be praised as such

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[MitchDev]

Spoken like a true coward

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[MitchDev]

Look at ALL the laws on the books at federal, state, county, and municipal levels... EVERYONE is a criminal even if they don;t realize it, that's a huge part of the problem, a legal system out of control...

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[MitchDev]

Elected officials are NOT above the law or the Constitution regardless of what they think.

Snowden is a hero and should be treated as such

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[dwillden]

Then you are blind. Every call for more and stricter gun control laws is an attack on gun rights. Every call to confiscate or restrict the classes of weapons we can own is an attack on rights. "Nobody needs an Assault Weapon" is an attack on gun rights, "Common Sense Gun laws" that will do nothing to stop criminals from using guns are an attack on gun rights.

If you saw nothing then you didn't actually look.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Whatever China and Russia are, neither is a dictatorship. That is an ignorant characterization.

The President of China (head of state; mostly a figurehead) is elected by the National People's Congress, which in turn is elected by an interesting hierarchical election system, ultimately by the people. The Premier (leader of the State Council; head of government) is nominated by the President and approved by the Congress.

Nice job as an apologist there. The Chinese presidency is simply an elected dictatorship with backroom deals being cut and alliances forged to reach that position. In no way at all do the common people have any say at all in this process. At best they get to vote in elections where those running have no opposition. The NPC folks are all carefully chosen and it's not like some office worker in Zhuhai, for example, can one day hope to move up through the system to join the NPC. One of the major problems as I see it is that the upper levels of the CCP have children who inherited their position from their fathers and they didn't do anything to earn it except be born into the right family. President Xi himself is an example of such. When you just give out leadership positions to the children of people who held those jobs before, you won't necessarily get the best and brightest.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Talderas]

You initially wrote this.

Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day

You are attributing 1,300 deaths a day due to second hand smoke which is wrong. CDC only claims 42,000 deaths annually are caused by secondhand smoke which works out to 115 deaths a day due to second hand smoke. You either misunderstood what the CDC provided or are intentionally misrepresenting the CDC's data.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

I'm not following. Sorry. And calling me stupid isn't helping me see your point.

Are there actual changes in gun laws where you live?

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[T.E.D.]

Whatever China and Russia are, neither is a dictatorship. ... Russia ... The President is elected by the people.

Lots of dictatorships have elections. Dictators love having elections. They get huge wins every time. What's not to love about that kind of approval from your people?

The USSR and the rest of their block used to have elections too. That didn't make them actual democratic republics, even if they did slap those words on their Nations' names.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Shortguy881]

Actually the ones overstepping their authority within the government are the traitors. They have spit on the rights of the people they were entrusted to protect. They should be hung for treason. Since they have some control over policy, they have it set up so patriots like Snowden are the criminals. See how that works?

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Punishing this man would send a message discouraging other whistle blowers from doing what he did.

That is the whole point. Make an example out of Snowden so that no one dares even think about exposing the governments wrongdoing.

There are a lot of people who believe this line of reasoning and a number of them are in the military or people like my mother. It was interesting last year on 9/11 when I mentioned that the terrorists had won as we were well on our way to accomplishing everything Osama wanted with the exception of leaving the Middle East. My mother blew a gasket that I would ever question our government's actions to keep us safe even if it did cost us our rights. My cousin who was still a week end warrior (one weekend a month 2 weeks a year) was insistent that our actions in the middle east have made it a better place even though he was 8 years old when 9/11 happened. Both of them take the approach of at least we are trying so it must be good without even considering that doing nothing may have been a better option.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

I should mention that although smoking kills 10,000 people a week, I don't support banning it, since that would require taking away our liberties and freedoms.

That's totally alright, but the government could very well ban smoking on any public land, including while driving.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[dwillden]

Where I live no because I live in a state that respects the 2nd Amendment. But in states on both coasts gun rights are being restricted. CA just banned a very broad range of weapons turning thousands of law abiding citizens into felons. NY has done the same as has CT and MASS. The Democratic candidate for President has called for more gun control laws, banning certain weapons (based on cosmetic features) and even banning and confiscating of guns like Australia did in 1996.

And you are going to claim that there is no attack on gun rights? Yes you are either blind or stupid.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[nitehawk214]

So you are saying that the USA should become more like China and Russia?

Fuck right off.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

"because his disclosures were NOT evidence of any criminal activity"

Every aspect of NSA/intelligence activity revealed by Snowden was/is illegal. It even prompted congress to quickly pass an act trying to legalize some of it under the false guise of limiting the activity but of course congress along with the rest of the federal government lacks constitutional authority to do or bless the actions being engaged in.

"Loose lips still sink ships, and it's entirely likely that people were killed as a result."

That seems highly suspect since there is plenty of evidence that intelligence have caused deaths, broken the law, and terrorized our own populace there is zero evidence that they've ever saved a life they didn't imperil in the first place. Not a single terrorist act has been shown to have been stopped. It's like that moment when you realize that if Indiana Jones had not been present at all the outcome of Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been the same but less damage getting there since it was the Ark and not Jones that defeated the Nazi's. The same with the Last Crusade, without Jones either the Germans don't find the grail or they do and would have killed themselves in exactly the same way trying to take it.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

There is no shortage of attack that you've listed above and frankly I believe his statement still stands.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

Actually you are the naive one, you think the US somehow stands apart from Russia, North Korea, and China?

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

That doesn't sound much different than the United States.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know Obama wants Snoden in jail. The NSA works for him directly, he could end all the "Issues" by simply ordering them stopped. If he approves of what is happening (he chooses to allow it to continue=approval) then he must oppose those who work to end those practices.

Maybe he just does not want to end like JFK did.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read the Nuremberg Principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles#Principle_IV

Also look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan

Military personnel can and have been held liable for unlawful actions taken under orders. They are obliged to disobey manifestly unlawful orders or be held personally responsible. Similar principles would apply to contractors.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

The one which springs to mind is the successful ban on "high capacity clips" in response to a school shooting (Sandy Brook?).

There are on-and-off attempts to ban "assault-style rifles" as well, although those rarely gain traction.

There have been discussions (and maybe a successful law?) trying to ban the "gun show loophole" (which would in effect require a person at a gun show to run a background check on the buyer; I have no idea how that would be practical at a temporary venue).

I think some states have reduced conceal-and-carry laws, although I can't cite any specifics so I could be imagining it.

If you want to push it, you could suggest that some recent attacks on stand-your-ground and castle-doctrine are anti-gun as well, although I'll openly admit that this is really stretching it.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you expect the NRA to respond here? It is a one-off, tragic mistake (or "mistake"). Is anybody suggesting that the key fact in the shooting was that the person was a gun owner? I heard it cast more as a racism item (more NAACP/ACLU) than a gun rights one (NRA).

If there was a systemic pattern of targeting gun owners for murder I'm sure the NRA would react. As it stands, a one-off bad situation usually doesn't trigger a response from an activist group.

For example, does the ACLU or EFF respond to every single flame an online troll posts? They are "free speech" groups, are they not? Have they even taken an official stance on trolling?

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

Let's not forget, this same military/intelligence apparatus created the animosity in the middle east that lead to 9/11 in the first place.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[MooseTick]

Are "Common Sense Gun laws" inherently bad?

The Constitution has no restrictions against 9 year olds owning, carrying, possessing, or using guns. That said, most "reasonable" people would think they should be restricted from carrying a loaded 6-shooter on their hip when going to class in the 4th grade. Would you consider "stricter gun control laws" of that nature to be "an attack on gun rights"?

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[LWATCDR]

"Elected officials are NOT above the law or the Constitution regardless of what they think."
So you think that Snowden is above the law? And I guess you are for putting Obama in prison then.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

"The man is a traitor and should be shot and would be in many other countries. Can you imagine him still alive in China, Russia, etc?"

I can imagine him still being alive in Russia just fine but I don't have to because he is actually alive in Russia.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

The ACLU responds every time someone gets killed expressing their freedom of speech in the US, yes.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[gumbi west]

Let's be clear, do you support the US Government imposing its will on states?

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[MitchDev]

Nope, Snowden exposed the corruption of the government and is a hero.

Obama has had to deal with a congress that has stated they have no interest in doing their jobs and instead outright stated they would do everything they could to block and hurt Obama's presidency. Yet he still beat the republicans for the White House, not just once but TWICE.

Kinda tells you how people view the republican party as it exists these days...

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[david_thornley]

You're getting the causes mixed up a little.

The Bush administration was not interested in gathering facts and then deciding what to do about Iraq. It was interested in going to war with Iraq and finding facts that supported the decision. The intelligence services did not cause the war.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[david_thornley]

Most seriously, near the end of the Reagan administration, in which buying a new infantry rifle was made illegal. I'm not actually pro-gun, but I do get sensitive about Constitutional rights, and I'd like to see that law found unconstitutional.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[david_thornley]

In the US, there are two parties that differ significantly from each other, and both frequently win elections. (The Republicans seem intent on self-destruction, but if they succeed there will be another party for what most of the rest of the developed world considers far right.) Presidents are limited to a maximum of ten years in office, which normally translates to two terms, and they all hand over power on schedule. There is no expectation of a ruling family. The US has a court system that has frequently shown its independence.

The US, while far from perfect, is also far from being Russia, China, or North Korea.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's impossible for Snowden to have committed treason since the agencies that he exposed were in fact conducting illegal and treasonous acts against the very people of the United States of America. Edward Snowden is a hero and a patriot. There is simply no truer description of the man.

People like you and everyone who works for the NSA, FBI, CIA and TSA need to be tried for treason and promptly shot.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy but nice try, troll.

If I had it my way, every traitor and hate-monger like you would be hung until dead.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

In many ways both Russia and China are freer than the United States. The US is far from the most free country in the world and in fact has a ton of restrictions that most uncultured and untravelled Americans *can't* see because they are heavily indoctrinated.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[quenda]

That's true. But still the intelligence services served the corrupt administration, and not the nation. They were a willing tool of evil.
The point is that "massive harm to the US intelligence apparatus" is not harm to the USA. The NSA needs drastic reform.
Unfortunately the "harm" to the NSA etc has been minimal. More like mild embarrassment. Noone has gone to jail.
The CIA director commits perjury to congress and nothing happens. Business as usual.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[LWATCDR]

good thing you are a coward so we can ignore you.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[LWATCDR]

Umm... Obama is doing all the things that you feel are illegal that Snowden leaked... And is out to put him in jail.
You can not say that Snowden did the right thing by breaking the law and reporting things you feel are illegal while President Obama is doing those illegal things.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

"In the US, there are two parties that differ significantly from each other, and both frequently win elections."

The US has one party with two flavors of spin designed to carefully divide the population in order to keep them from uniting and looking too closely while they strip the Constitution and the people of power. It can be argued the Constitution was never really more than something to rally people behind and ignore when inconvenient. The president hands over all power every 10 years to prevent the president from having much power. The people who are actually in charge aren't politicians at all, the nation is run by the wealthy elite and the unelected military/intelligence complex which does not give up power.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[david_thornley]

If you take a look at the two parties, they differ on a lot of issues, including health care, abortion, equal rights for people with nonstandard sexuality, social programs, and the role of government in the US. They agree on many issues, including some I disagree with, but that's how it's going to be with the two-party system our election processes implicitly mandate. The court system (and the Federal courts in particular are pretty independent) pays attention to the Constitution, although as before I don't agree with all their rulings.

The US is a reasonably functional democracy, far from perfect, but far from being a dictatorship.

Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot

[david_thornley]

From what I've seen, the intelligence services are tools that the Bush administration misused to justify invading Iraq. They were pressed to come up with results Cheney liked, and Cheney misused what he got from them. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it's corrupt or can't be useful.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot

[shaitand]

"If you take a look at the two parties, they differ on a lot of issues, including health care, abortion, equal rights for people with nonstandard sexuality, social programs, and the role of government in the US. They agree on many issues, including some I disagree with, but that's how it's going to be with the two-party system our election processes implicitly mandate."

You seem to have this odd idea that what they say to you to get elected and/or divide you is what they care about/stand for/etc. Stating two positions and pretending to be competitors means the things they want can pass while the things they don't but said they did can fail and be blamed on "the other guy" who is really just part of the same team.

Look at the illegal NSA domestic wiretapping. Whose interest did it serve for some to pretend outrage, some to claim support, then pass a bill to "reform" that actually just gave congressional blessing to unconstitutional and illegal actions? Whatever congress had the authority to legalize was legalized by the bill and the bill has language legalizing all sorts of things congress doesn't have the authority to legalize. Somehow both parties were on board with "reforming" by blessing in reality and lying to the public indicating they were putting a stop to the illegal activity on the other?

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he actually expose anything illegal or did people just not read the patriot act?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems like may people "know in their hearts" what is Constitutional, while never suffering from the understanding that laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are in fact Constitutional unless, or until, the Supreme Court rules against them

It is a sad display of what passes for civics education in this country

Re:Hmmm

[wierd_w]

Yes.

1) exposed the fact Eric holder lied to congress multiple times concerning domestic intelligence and broad data collection against us citizens accused of no crimes. (Purgery is a crime)

2) irrefutably exposed that the NSA performs illegal wiretapping on a routine, standard operating policy basis. (Illegal search is a high crime, specifically denounced in the constitution.)

3) irrefutably exposed that the NSA shares data on foreign persons collected in bulk in exchange for bulk data on american citizens, again, for people who are not accused of any crime, or part of any investigation. (Some of these countries are not on diplomatically friendly terms, making this very close to genuine treason.)

But of course, the guy who calls attention to the elephant in the room is the bad guy.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are in fact Constitutional unless, or until, the Supreme Court rules against them

Very wrong.

When SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, they're not saying, "We hereby invoke our magic judge powers to bestow the Mark Of Unconstitutionality upon this previously-Constitutional law! Legislatus!".

They're saying "This law was always unconstitutional*, multiple lower courts have noticed this, and now after much thought the highest court in the country has agreed with those lower courts."

Your statement presumes the courts to have power that they not only don't have, but don't even claim to have.

*Exception: The law was constitutional when first passed, but became unconstitutional when an applicable amendment was ratified. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but they probably exist.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

He also got on a plane and handed over a large number of classified documents to TWO enemies. An at that moment he turned from a hero whistle blower to a traitor.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, yeah try taking that into a court of law.

You have just managed to take the entire idea of legal precedence and stack it up against... your opinion

fucking hilarious, or to quote wikipedia

"Depending on the type of legal system, a statute may be declared unconstitutional by any court, or only by special Constitutional courts with authority to rule on the validity of a statute."

There you go sparky, may be declared by a constitutional court, or in the USofA, the Supreme Court... not any other court, much less the court of public opinion that you seem to think should rule

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the first reaction to what he did was "jail him! Kill him!". But keep it up. Maybe you could scare off all smart people like that.

Re:Hmmm

[bjdevil66]

"1) exposed the fact Eric holder lied to congress multiple times concerning domestic intelligence and broad data collection against us citizens accused of no crimes. (Purgery is a crime)" -- Normally one should let grammar issues go, but it's perjury - not purgery. It sounds like you're saying that AG Holder barfed all over Congress (which he did do in a way..)

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Jail him is the normal reaction for those who beak laws and cause the deaths of innocents (unfiltered dumps->Zimbabwe opposition->targeted and killed). Kill him only comes out when to defend his personal freedom he ran to hide behind that great humanitarian and defender of liberties Vladimir Putin...

Re:Hmmm

[silentcoder]

It is also, entirely possible, to pass a law that is perfectly constitutional in wording - but ends up being applied in a way that, while consistent with that law, is no longer consistent with the constitution.

Such cases are generally rarer since they are more complicated, but they do exist, and are often the harder ones to solve. A good example would be Texas's onerous regulations on abortion clinics which have led to a great many closing. In theory a law to regulate a healthcare provider and ensure safe service is perfectly constitutional. But the application of this law has the effect of essentially denying many people access to abortions - and it is unconstitutional for government to deny them that. It's likely that, in due course, that case will be heard before the supreme court and more than likely it will be struck down for being unconstitutional in effect, if not in word, but that could take a while.

In this case it helps that the unconstitutional effect is entirely intended and there is plenty of available evidence of that fact. Hell ending abortion is in the republican party platform - and many of the representatives who put it there are from Texas and on record as supporting it.

PS. repliers: I will not debate the morality of abortion rights with you. The example is of something that the constitution prevents the government from doing, which is being done via the trickery of passing a constitutional law with an unconstitutional effect.

Re:Hmmm

[silentcoder]

Did you even read the quote you posted ? It literally says the OPPOSITE of what you think it says.
It says depending on the legal system it could, indeed, be declared unconstitutional by any court.

The US legal system is one of those where any court can make such a declaration. However, such findings from a lower court are only valid in the jurisdiction of that lower court, and only if it's appealed will it, after passing through all the layers reach the supreme court which is the only court that can declare it unconstitutional with nation-wide effect.

A good example is the Communist Control Act of 1954. This law banned the US communist party. A clear violation of the 1st amendment. The case was taken to court and ultimately the supreme court of Arizona declared it unconstitutional. The Eisenhower government did not appeal that decision - and with good reason, they knew they would lose. As a result the case never got to the supreme court and the act was never struck down nationwide. It's still the law in 49 out of 50 states, but the Arizona court decision stands and the act is not law in Arizona.
It's unlikely it will ever go before the court - since nobody has been prosecuted under the act in decades, there is nobody with standing to bring a case before the supreme court.

Interestingly though - it's possible for good politicians to do it themselves, though this is rare and I don't think the US has anybody like that. A good example comes from South Africa. In November 1996 parliament passed a healthcare reform bill which the president, Nelson Mandela, duly signed into law. The act contained a fatal clerical error that would, in effect, shut down many hospitals due to the words actually signed into law meaning something very different to what was intended. Now Mandela had a problem. He had signed the act before the mistake was discovered. The law was in effect and it was December. Parliament had closed for the Christmas holiday and would not reconvene until February - and the biggest road accident season of the year was about to happen - with half the hospitals hamstrung by a typo in a law. Without the option of having parliament pass an emergency amendment (since they were closed) Mandela brought a case before the Constitutional court, against himself, asking them to strike down the law an in reinstate the former law until the new year when the reform bill could be rewritten and corrected. The court agreed and struck down the case.
It is on record as Mandela v Mandela. Mandela the citizen sued himself the President to get the court to strike down the law as an emergency measure to get rid of it until it could be fixed. Granted, suing yourself is somewhat simpler for a court than most cases, what with the defendent agreeing with everything you say and pleading 'no contest'.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the type of legal system, a statute may be declared unconstitutional by any court, or only by special Constitutional courts with authority to rule on the validity of a statute.

And what part of this statement says that a law is constitutional until declared otherwise?

much less the court of public opinion that you seem to think should rule

I didn't say that, or anything that suggests that I think such a thing. Strawman arguments are lies.

Re: Hmmm

[mrchaotica]

Jail him is the normal reaction for those who beak laws and cause the deaths of innocents

If that were true, then several current and former Presidents, some of their cabinet members, a bunch of senior military officers, many, many CIA, NSA, FBI and DEA officers, and probably quite a few members of Congress would be in jail right now.

Re:Hmmm

[shaitand]

The patriot act itself isn't legal. Just because someone makes a "law" doesn't actually make something legal, the someone had to have the authority to back that law in the first place and all federal and state authority comes from the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Anything they do that isn't within that authority or is counter to it, is illegal and police enforcing it are nothing more criminal scum traitors to the only authority which do not derive their authority from law, the people.

Once you start looking for it, you will see a pattern that persists across parties over time of taking on greater federal power and weakening the people's innate power. It comes on many fronts ranging from weakening force of arms to weakening force of juries to psychological warfare convincing the people they are powerless. This is a CIA psychological warfare tactic developed during the cold war, they feared sci-fi writers were doing this very thing about the unwinnability of world war 3 aka nuclear war. It's like how cheaters suspect the actions of their partners because they know the way they themselves lie and hide actions.

Better yet

[Anonymous Coward]

He deserves a guillotine more than a pardon.

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd really rather put him on trial with an opportunity to defend himself. But, as I understand it, under the current law he would not be allowed to tell a jury why he did what he did, which would pretty much guarantee an automatic conviction not based on the true merits of his case. So I guess a pardon is the best we can do.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

He could yet negotiate quite a bit for his return. That none shall hinder him from making whatever defense before the jury he wants seems doable to me.

Re:Sigh

[david_thornley]

Snowden is guilty of felony offenses. That's clear. He'd be convicted in a fair trial. Why he did what he did doesn't matter to these particular laws.

The way to get him legally cleared is not to subvert the law in a courtroom but to issue a pardon.

It's just another fundraiser.

[cunina]

Long ago, the ACLU worked tirelessly to defend the civil liberties of Americans. Now they're just a fundraising organization that mostly exists to elect Democrats. Snowden did a lot of good, but he also acted indiscriminately and betrayed American intelligence-gathering methods to foreign powers. He should be pardoned for whistleblowing on domestic surveillance but punished severely for espionage. Th ACLU knows this but would rather pretend otherwise, in order to get those sweet, sweet donor contacts.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[khallow]

but he also acted indiscriminately and betrayed American intelligence-gathering methods to foreign powers

So why shouldn't he be pardoned for that? People keep forgetting that it was that or not say anything at all. Legal whistle blowing doesn't work. That means there will always be some legal angle like the one you espouse that allows the powers-that-be to punish anyone that steps out of line.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?
Do they Lobby?
Hold Fund Raisers?
Donate?

Sorry if many of your Causes Violate the Constitution.

You can pretend it is them against you.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[cunina]

It is ludicrous to suggest that to expose domestic wiretapping, Snowden necessarily had to expose our foreign intelligence gathering methods and assets.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not. Did you not even pay attention? To expose the domestic program guaranteed the foreign program would fall.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, the methods are illegal. Of course they need to be exposed, because they need to be stopped. Not even going to bother logging in for this one.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you need to pay a little more attention. There was a clear demarcation between the domestic related material and the foreign intelligence related material. He could have walked if he had not released the foreign intelligence information.

In a perfect world there would not be a need for intrusive foreign intelligence operations but we do not live in a perfect world. If you want to argue against and try to stop foreign intelligence operations you will need to include all the other foreign intelligence services around the world in your argument. Snowden will not be pardoned and he better hope Russia doesn't give him up to obtain concessions from the US. Russia really wants the economic sanctions levied against them reduced or eliminated and giving up Snowden costs them nothing. Russia also wants the US to extradite several Russian nationals wanted for financial related offenses.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[BlueStrat]

There was a clear demarcation between the domestic related material and the foreign intelligence related material.

No, there was not.

That was the whole point and why people are upset! Supposedly 'foreign' intelligence-gathering scooping up masses of domestic data on US citizens and being retained in essence forever.

Way to (intentionally) miss the pachyderm sitting in your lap!

Of course it's quite likely you're paid (like many others posting on related topics in which governments have an interest) to post such utter nonsense so it's not really surprising.

Strat

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[pushing-robot]

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[PvtVoid]

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

Donald Trump's penis? I'm pretty sure it has never been accused of liberal bias.

But otherwise, yeah, that's about it.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[fnj]

[Snowden] acted indiscriminately and betrayed American intelligence-gathering methods to foreign powers

No, he didn't "betray" anything to "foreign powers". The claim is stupid. He blew the whistle on blatantly unconstitutional US intelligence activities.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[fnj]

Name the specific methods exposed and assets betrayed. Or shut the fuck up. Your choice.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump's penis? I'm pretty sure it has never been accused of liberal bias.

But otherwise, yeah, that's about it.

Well, it does keep fucking foreign women, instead of actual Americans.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[BarbaraHudson]

The NRA.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

The pachyderm sitting in your lap would be:

If you can do it to a foreigner, you can do it to a US citizen under the same circumstances. No matter what "it" is. What matters is where the suspect is, not who they are.

You can't pass a law making it legal to spy on, say, a Chinese or Saudi citizen in Washington, without making it equally legal to spy on an American citizen living in the next apartment. Well, you can, but that law would be unconstitutional.

"Equal protection of the laws", it's called. And it's also why US law has nothing to say about drone strikes on US citizens in Yemen. That would be a violation of Yemeni law.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Legal Whistle Blowing Doesn't work." I believe that there are a number of senior analysts at CENTCOM that would tend to disagree with you.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/11/house-task-force-confirms-u-s-military-manipulated-intel-make-seem-obama-winning-islamic-state/

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

My dick leans to the left.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[cold fjord]

People keep forgetting that it was that or not say anything at all. Legal whistle blowing doesn't work. That means there will always be some legal angle like the one you espouse that allows the powers-that-be to punish anyone that steps out of line.

Baloney. Snowden should have gone to Congress. What gets many whistle blowers in trouble is going to the press instead of Congress.

And yes, there have been whistle blowers that were abused and persecuted unjustly, and some of the people that engaged in that abuse are under investigation now.. Either way that doesn't make what Snowden did right. And really it doesn't matter how badly Snowden screwed the US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, and so on ..... he will still have a big fan base. Of course the chickens are starting to come home to roost.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuck you say

In the US it has ALWAYS been completely legal for US intelligence agencies to spy on international traffic

It was wiretapping of US citizens within the borders of the US which has traditionally been restricted, and where you had to demonstrate equal protections among US citizens.

Read up sparky, you are naive to the point of being dangerous to yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

that is a red herring and you know it... If a person had actual evidence to disprove what you are claiming, then they would also be in a position to not be able to expose it

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[rtb61]

Would Edward Snowden ever accept a carefully worded pardon, seriously he would have to be nuts. You can guarantee the US would treat that pardon exactly like they treated treaties with the citizens of the original American nations, and just like the treat citizens of the current nation. Those agreements worth less than toilet paper (the paper they use simply to hard and shiny to be used effectively). When being investigated those government organisations lied under oath, and that was corruptly protected by the current government administration, who broke their constitutional oaths to do so.

Edward Snowden is hero for freedom, democracy, justice and the truth. The secrets they corruptly kept and the lies they told, all funded by tax payers funds broke all the core required elements of democracy and it is only mass corruption that is keeping them all from being properly prosecuted and serving extended custodial sentences.

Forget about pardoning Snowden, let's focus of prosecuting the real criminals Edwards Snowden's courage exposed. I am sure he will find that of far, far more value that a vapour ware peace treaty between himself and a corrupt government.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[khallow]

It was a revolt not whistle blowing. Unlike this case, Snowden didn't have the support of 50 coworkers.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[khallow]

And yes, there have been whistle blowers that were abused and persecuted unjustly, and some of the people that engaged in that abuse are under investigation now.

Perhaps it would be educational for you to point out NSA whistle blowers who haven't been abused and persecuted unjustly?

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[cold fjord]

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello shill.
Didn't read your post, just wanted to point out that you aren't exactly credible when it comes to this subject.
Perhaps I should read your post because the opposite of what you state is usually true.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. To anyone who says he should have further explored "legal avenues".. your vaunted 'Founding Fathers' eventually gave up on the "legal avenues" once it was realized those avenues were *pure BS*. They were traitors, pure and simple. But you worship their treason because it suits your current existence. Think about that.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[cold fjord]

If we include the wider intelligence community, from 1999 to 2009 it looks like 7 out of 10 made complaints that didn't include retaliation as an element.

Intelligence Whistleblower Law Has Been Used Infrequently

Does it somehow surprise you that someone engaged in shady behavior might also engage in harassment and retaliation? Vigorous enforcement of the protective statutes is going to help reduce the incidence of retaliation.

If you think that any of this is some excuse for Edward Snowden stealing a couple of million Top Secret documents and handing them to foreigners to make them available to all comers you've been chasing too many parked cars.

I hope you've found this educational.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably should read those posts. You might learn something important, like this:

For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[RespekMyAthorati]

Those right-wing kooks are almost as bad as the ultimate right-wing kook.
That would be you, cold_fjord.

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care about what the US government does in the US, but it is the illegal wiretapping abroad I take issue with.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[phayes]

So why shouldn't he be pardoned for that?

Because Obama doing so now would hand the election over to Trump? Doing so after the elections are held might die down enough to not make it matter in 4 years but now? No, please no...

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[silentcoder]

>Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

The NRA ? Actually... I'll bet there are some wingnuts who think the NRA is way too pro-gun-control.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[khallow]

So you don't actually have examples. Snowden was able to point to several cases where NSA whistle blowers were punished. For example:

Edward Snowden has called for a complete overhaul of US whistleblower protections after a new source from deep inside the Pentagon came forward with a startling account of how the system became a "trap" for those seeking to expose wrongdoing.

The account of John Crane, a former senior Pentagon investigator, appears to undermine Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other major establishment figures who argue that there were established routes for Snowden other than leaking to the media.

Crane, a longtime assistant inspector general at the Pentagon, has accused his old office of retaliating against a major surveillance whistleblower, Thomas Drake, in an episode that helps explain Snowden's 2013 National Security Agency disclosures. Not only did Pentagon officials provide Drake's name to criminal investigators, Crane told the Guardian, they destroyed documents relevant to his defence.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the NRA *is* Donald Trump's penis.

C'mon: prove the contrary, I dare you

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The NRA ? Actually... I'll bet there are some wingnuts who think the NRA is way too pro-gun-control.

Don't worry there are worse groups although most are pretty small there are a couple of larger ones in that list that I have actually heard of and I have heard a number of people referring to the NRA as meaning "Negotiating Rights Away".

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[nitehawk214]

Obviously no pardons take place until the lame-duck period starts after the election.

But there is no way Obama would pardon Snowden. It was his freaking government doing all the illegal shit that Snowden reported on.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitutional limits to government power are considered a Democrat thing now?!? Wow. I bet could quote 1980 Reagan campaign speeches and and you'd call me a Democrat. (Which, BTW, I'm not.) These are interesting times.

No wonder nobody thinks of Republicans as conservative anymore; if Democrats are the new conservatives, that'd not only explain why liberals/progressives are so angry, but it might also explain what happened to the Republicans. Maybe with nowhere to go to distinguish themselves from that other party, they felt they had no choice but to leave all the classical left/right stuff behind, and just went for a grab-bag-of-crazy without any political ideology behind it.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[BarbaraHudson]

The NRA is bigger than Donald's hands. Credit for pointing that out goes to Ted Cruz.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[MooseTick]

Jason Borne, for one!

Re: It's just another fundraiser.

[khallow]

That is incorrect. There are a number of people such as Obama and the heads of several intelligence agencies who have the authority to do so even if the evidence is classified.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[cold fjord]

Go read that post again. I can back up my views, there are facts behind them. The people and media I link to are people that deal with ideas and facts too. Yet here you are calling names. The real kook here is you because without name calling you probably have nothing. You're probably in desperate need of having some new perspectives to consider.

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[david_thornley]

You provided some cites from reputable sources, but not ones that are listed as saying anything against the ACLU.

If the ACLU was left-wing, why did it defend the right of neo-Nazis to have a parade in an area where they'd offend as many people as deeply as possible (Skokie, Illinoise)?

Re:It's just another fundraiser.

[cold fjord]

I suppose you probably don't know anything about the "Journolist" scandal, the collusion, and attempts to influence a presidential election?

The fix was in

Trying to convince Obama?

[viperidaenz]

He's about to leave office. The elections are in less than 4 weeks.
They're targeting the wrong president.

They should be targeting Donald Gump or Hilary Pneumonia and trying to convince them to make an election promise.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[viperidaenz]

Oops, better add a month on to that 4 weeks.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Wycliffe]

He's about to leave office. The elections are in less than 4 weeks.
They're targeting the wrong president.

They should be targeting Donald Gump or Hilary Pneumonia and trying to convince them to make an election promise.

Except that it's become tradition for presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their last day in office. If your political career is basically over then noone can do much if you pardon all your friends.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better add another 2 1/2 months until the inauguration.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[MachineShedFred]

Nope.

Target the lame duck that isn't answerable to anybody. He can sign the pardon on his way to board Marine One to be flown back to Chicago to start writing his next book, and there isn't jack shit that anybody could do about it.

The next President, whoever it is, would have to live with it, the reaction of Congress, etc. for the rest of their term.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[naris]

It's not the 8 weeks, not 4 weeks, to the election that matters, it's the 18 weeks until the next president is inaugurated that matters.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's become tradition for presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their last day in office. If your political career is basically over then noone can do much if you pardon all your friends.

Just ask Gerald Ford!

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't be pardoned if he hasn't had a trial and been convicted. He would have to come home, stand trial, and pray someone pardons him??? Would anyone in their right mind take that phantom deal when the wolves of the US DOJ want to cut their career teeth into him as a trophy? Never going to happen.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[steveg]

Are you suggesting that Richard Nixon was tried and convicted? Or that Gerald Ford did *not* pardon him?

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why he should pardon him now. It would mean a lot more to those who supported him in 2008 and have been disappointed ever since.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[fnj]

Yes. One is more likely to get action from outgoing Obama than from incoming Trump or Clinton. The caution is that that if "they" really want to get someone, they will. One could be pardoned. Then he could be railroaded later on, for some trumped-up charge of a new offense. Or he could just be found lying dead in the gutter some day, victim of a "random mugging".

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[BarbaraHudson]

And the only one with a realistic chance of granting a pardon was cheated by the DNC, On this topic, Clinton is 100% indistinguishable from a republican.

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually the former President doesn't fly out until the new President is inaugurated, so anything the former President signs at that point is just a wish, not a pardon.

Also, it's not called Marine One unless the President is on board, so maybe you're envisioning him flying out before the new President is inaugurated. Now, if the new President is Trump I could imagine that happening!

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that Richard Nixon was tried and convicted? Or that Gerald Ford did *not* pardon him?

Ford pardoned Nixon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67c-I-yt7s0

Re:Trying to convince Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask Gerald Ford!

Or Bill Clinton.

Good Luck With That.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very Unlikely to happen.

slope

[Anonymous Coward]

But then they'll have to pardon hilary

Re:slope

[naris]

There is no need to pardon anyone that has not been charged with anything.

Re:slope

[PvtVoid]

There is no need to pardon anyone that has not been charged with anything.

Somebody should have told that to Gerald Ford.

Re:slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, really? One US President has felt differently about that. Recall the Ford pardon of Nixon (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon) in which a man who was then facing no criminal charges was granted "a full, free, and absolute pardon [...] for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in"

Re:slope

[Pseudonym]

There is no need to pardon anyone that has not been charged with anything.

He has been charged with one count of theft of government property, and two counts of violating the Espionage Act.

It's because he's leaving office.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a tradition of Presidents (and state governors, for that matter), handing out politically unpopular pardons and commutations on their last day in office, when it can't be used against them while still in office. This is why the ACLU is targeting Obama.

it would not make one bit of difference

[Lead Butthead]

Even if he is pardoned, he'll forever live under a microscope (government holds grudges better than anyone I know) and will have difficulties in finding employment.

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's pardoned he'll live briefly under a microscope until he stops living suddenly under a car, or off the edge of a rocky cliff edge.

Don't confuse a pardon with an obligation for the government to allow him to keep breathing. Not the same.

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[SuricouRaven]

Or once the balance of power has shifted a bit, he will just be prosecuted anyway for some different crime.

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[tshawkins]

True, some TLA will raid his house based on an anonymous terrorisim tipoff and they will find kiddyporn on his computer, fake logs and evidence will be trotted out. put him away and destroy his reputation at the same time.

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[Shortguy881]

Not even the US government is that stupid (or that well organized). They wouldn't willingly turn a folk hero into a martyr.

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[GameboyRMH]

GCHQ actually has the software to facilitate this...

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse a pardon with an obligation for the government to allow him to keep breathing. Not the same.

More likely he ends up suddenly thinking his name is Chelsea and dressing up like a girl... oh wait they already did that one.

Re:it would not make one bit of difference

[peawormsworth]

Even if he is pardoned, he'll forever live under a microscope (government holds grudges better than anyone I know) and will have difficulties in finding employment.

Just like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi

Re: it would not make one bit of difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. There are plenty of retards with guns running amok in the states. I'm sure one of those asshats will off him given half the chance.

So It's Going To Take A Hollywood For-Profit Movie

[Anonymous Coward]

To convince Obama that unfettered spying without a warrant is not legal according to the constitution?

Our president would have some mental disease if *that* what it takes to convince him otherwise.

ho hum

[Pax681]

Snowden's layer at the ACLU, Ben Wizner, told Fusion. "Those people will emerge from the movie more education about surveillance and with more positive attitudes toward Snowden."

wow.. would that mean "more educated about surveillance" .. shame that lawyer wasn't more educated in grammar!

keep in mind an important fact

[Anonymous Coward]

obama swore an oath to hollywood and people like henry kissenger, not the constitution

Should do it anyway

[WillAffleckUW]

If Snowden has done things since leaving the US, they are still subject to other actions.

Besides, since we frequently remotely execute even American citizens in other countries for lesser actions, pardoning Snowden might make him easier to target when we do break international law to execute him.

Re:Should do it anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we execute Americans in our own country for the lesser crime of selling single cigarettes on street corners, so this isn't anything special. Murder is just par for the course with our government these days. If it's not the government then it's law enforcement.

Anyone have any idea what the law is this days? If you could fill me in that'd be swell, thanks.

Re:Should do it anyway

[WillAffleckUW]

Technically, we subscribe to many treaties, like the LOTS Geneva Accords etc, all of which we routinely violate, so I give you that.

And then there is Breathing While Black, as you reference, which we execute American citizens for, so, good point.

That said, we should still pardon Snowden before we pretend that he died in a freak accident that we had nothing to do with.

Re:Should do it anyway

[dwillden]

That was not an execution. It was an improper hold in an attempt to subdue him as he resisted arrest. He had every option to stop resisting and remain alive today. Claiming murder or execution for what at most was a very unfortunate accident and one that could have been avoided by the victim not resisting a lawful arrest, is being dishonest and only serves to make honest debate impossible.

Re:Should do it anyway

[david_thornley]

Suppose I had a right to use force against you for a non-lethal threat, and I wound up doing something I shouldn't and killed you. I'd get convicted of murder. The police have a duty to not kill people when they don't have to.

Americans don't care about privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans don't care about privacy. Facebook is proof of that. So is Instagram. So, I think Snowden was a fool.

Re:Americans don't care about privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because every American gives two shits about Facebook and Instagram, you fool.

Re:Americans don't care about privacy

[shaitand]

They do by such an overwealming majority that the tiny few who don't are a statistical blip.

Re:Americans don't care about privacy

[Wain13001]

I post a lot of things on FB, there is a whole lot more that I don't.

Historic third term for Obama!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Obama 2016!

Re:Historic third term for Obama!

[silentcoder]

A third term would not be historic. It wouldnt' even match the current record. FDR served 4 terms. Term limits were only instituted after his 4th term. That also means, that should congress want to, they could remove them again.

Then again... they may just want to do that, Obama really hasn't enjoyed his time in office, I think he is very much looking forward to opening a library and retiring. I can totally see the republicans getting rid of term limits and pushing him onto the ballot now just to undermine his wish for a quiet retirement, after all they spent 8 years undermining him in every other possible way - up to and including undermining him in delicate foreign negotiations by writing to the other party to promise not to uphold the terms of any treaty once he is out of office, an act which - by the way, is illegal and amounts to treason. Why should they stop undermining him now ? He wants to retire, lets force him to serve another term.

Re:Historic third term for Obama!

[tendrousbeastie]

I'm not American, but I don't think a constitutional amendment can be repealed by Congress alone - doesn't it require a majority of the states to vote for it too?

Re:Historic third term for Obama!

[silentcoder]

As I understand it there are two ways. It can be done by a majority of states voting for it, or by a special convention where both state governors and congress have to attend and it needs enough votes there.

I do know that the latter version, while theoretically possible, has never actually happened. This is because technically it's significantly harder. Governors won't generally vote against the state governments so you effectively still need a majority of the states, but you also need a majority from both houses of congress as well. Special conventions are therefore harder, but, if you could do it - would be significantly faster.

Of course, not everything that becomes a constitutional amendment starts out that way. The emancipation proclamation for example spent quite some time as basically an executive order before it was replaced by an essentially identical constitutional amendment.
And the systems vary by country as well. In South Africa for example a constitutional amendment only requires a supermajority in both houses of parliament, and there have been 19 amendments in just 20 years since the final constitution was adopted. Granted, these are all fairly minor administrative stuff like changing the name of a province or moving a provincial border to put a town in a different province. The pace has definitely declined since the last election though. Before that the ANC government had a sufficiently large electoral majority that they could pass amendments entirely by themselves, nowadays they couldn't get the votes in parliament unless at least one large or several small parties agree with them. There's no way any of them would vote for term limit extensions that's for certain - hell half the ANC wouldn't want to (but probably will anyway since it's a party where your future depends entirely on voting the party line in every debate).

Re:Historic third term for Obama!

[silentcoder]

Though, you know I was kidding about giving Obama a third term just to spite him right ?

Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[Tablizer]

It's possible half of what he did was "good" and half was "bad". In the legal system, doing good doesn't usually counter-act the bad.

Let's say you rescued a child from a burning building, and then an hour later you kicked a dog and broke its leg. Rescuing the child doesn't cancel the kicking act in most courts.

Some of the stuff Ed released may turn out to be legitimate to release, but other stuff perhaps not.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[BarbaraHudson]

It's possible half of what he did was "good" and half was "bad". In the legal system, doing good doesn't usually counter-act the bad.

Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.

Or to use your example, you won't be charged with forcible entry or damage to property for kicking in a door to save a kid in a fire.

In both cases, the collateral damage is seen as worth it.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[Tablizer]

That's only if Action A depends on Action B. But exposing X typically won't also involve having to expose Y. Although, you are welcome to present such a scenario.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[fahrbot-bot]

Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.

Great! Anyone out there need saving?

[ Wait. Do the two things need to be related? ]

Re: Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so convenient to cover up crimes by pointing to strong laws protecting secrecy in the name of national security... too convenient to give it up. So the NSA will always claim that national security was damaged by any leak, even though the only real damage was the governments unconstitutional actions and subsequent perjury... which was already done before the leak.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[gfxguy]

Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.

No, you're allowed to kill someone threatening your or another persons life, but you can't shoot someone for the last life preserver on the boat, or the last parachute on the plane.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[silentcoder]

But if I can run faster than him - I won't be charged, though it's arguably still murder.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[gfxguy]

If you run faster and get the last [life preserver | parachute], then it's just good old survival of the fittest.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[BarbaraHudson]

The real issue is being evaded. Edward Snowden hasn't committed treason because he hasn't given anything to any enemy of the US. Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, and they haven't done so since 1942. So Russia, China, even North Vietnam are not legally enemies - so there's no need for Snowden to prove his innocence - just to introduce the legal, constitutional definition of enemy.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, you'd have a legal defense. If their taking it was a threat to your life, what's the problem? Besides, would you rather be a dead hero or a live ordinary chump?

In Canada you weren't even allowed to kill someone even to prevent another party from killing you. Killing person A under threat to your own life by person B (under duress) wasn't legal. That was screwed up. The Supreme Court fixed that in the 90's.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[gfxguy]

If you had the last life preserver, and they forcefully tried to take it, you'd be absolutely right - what I'm suggesting is that if they reached it first, you have no legal (or moral) right to kill that person to save yourself.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[BarbaraHudson]

Morally, probably not. Legally, of course you do. Besides, who's going to contradict whatever story you make up? In Canada, you even have the right to kill someone if you fear that not doing so will mean that the person who ordered you to will kill you instead. Duress is now an excuse. The Constitution gives an absolute right to the security of the person, and you can take any steps you feel necessary to save your life.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[david_thornley]

"Enemy" isn't defined in the Constitution, so it can include countries we haven't declared war on, but currently neither Russia nor China qualifies. I'd say ISIS qualified, but I don't see that Snowden has given ISIS aid or comfort.

Re:Half & Half [Re:Better yet]

[BarbaraHudson]

Legally there is no war except when Congress declares it. Look it up. It's right in the Constitution. Instead of doing stuff extra-judicially, they should have declared war on Islamic State. Until war is declared by Congress, the US simply isn't legally at war with anyone.

Trial and Then Pardon

[rsmith-mac]

As someone who is displeased with how Snowden went about this, I'm not opposed to the idea of a pardon. However I don't believe a carte blanche pardon is appropriate, or sets good precedence.

What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial. And then, once the trial is complete, a pardon can be issued if necessary. Even if what Snowden did was ultimately a good thing, I believe there still needs to be repercussions for it - that he needs to take responsibility for his actions. A trial to firmly establish the facts of the case and whether he did anything against the law, even if it can only end in not-guilty or a presidential pardon, is something I think would be a reasonable compromise.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[steveg]

Not as long as he's still being charged under the Espionage Act. Under that act, he is not allowed to defend himself. That's written into the law.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial. And then, once the trial is complete, a pardon can be issued if necessary.

This is how civil disobedience is supposed to work. Yes, it is risky. The risk involved is a significant part of why such acts are worthy of respect.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[squiggleslash]

Going to be a little difficult to organize that in the next four months but I understand where you're coming from. If it were possible, I'd be in favor.

Also, FWIW, I'm more bothered about Chelsea Manning than Snowden (who at least is living "free", if not in his home country), who's facing intolerable treatment in jail, after doing much the same thing.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who is displeased with how Snowden went about this.....

Wow, short of Snowden continuing to be complicit in the crimes committed the US intelligence agencies he had no options.

On topic, how is it that Snowden should stand trail, when officials who lied to congress and approved the illegal surveillance of hundreds of millions of people, aren't asked to stand trial. As with the whole torture thing it seems the US is once again trying to sweep it's crimes under the rug, at least have the decency to pardon any minor infractions committed in the process of revealing these crimes.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also agree to his standing trial * IF * those people he exposed (Eric Holder, etc.) as criminals were also put on trial, and if the organizations engaging in illegal activity were investigated and those responsible actually put on trial as well (no bureaucratic immunity). After all, why should one person have to take responsibility for their actions while others don't?

Without this, any trial he is put to would be a horrible injustice. If those others are not going to be put to trial, neither should snowden.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, why should one person have to take responsibility for their actions while others don't?

Without this, any trial he is put to would be a horrible injustice. If those others are not going to be put to trial, neither should snowden.

LOL, no.

Besides as a man of principles, I am sure he is anxious for his day in court where he can stare down the corrupt powers-that-be under the unblinking gaze of public scrutiny, unlike those other mere criminals. Right?

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Pseudonym]

What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial.

Stand trial for what, though?

One of Snowden's complaints (and the chief reason, according to him, that he has not returned to the US to stand trial) is that he has been charged on two counts under the Espionage Act, which prevents him from defending himself in open court. Presumably you, too, would prefer that he was allowed to make a public interest defense?

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Pseudonym]

Besides as a man of principles, I am sure he is anxious for his day in court where he can stare down the corrupt powers-that-be under the unblinking gaze of public scrutiny, [...]

It's flowery language you're using here, but according to Snowden and his lawyer, this is more or less correct. The Espionage Act does not allow Snowden to make a "I did it in the public interest"-type defence.

Whether or not he would actually return, were he charged with something that did give him the possibility of saying in open court why he was motivated to do what he did, is an open question. Still, right now he doesn't have the option of having his day in court. A show trial is never your day in court.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

"What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial."

Fascist. Snowden had fucking high ranking officials making the most thinly of veiled death threats against him. Put those fuckers on trial first if you want to be rational about this justice.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[rsmith-mac]

One of Snowden's complaints (and the chief reason, according to him, that he has not returned to the US to stand trial) is that he has been charged on two counts under the Espionage Act, which prevents him from defending himself in open court. Presumably you, too, would prefer that he was allowed to make a public interest defense?

My preference is to follow the letter of the law. If that includes charges under the Espionage Act, then so be it.

A pardon is the executive - the leader of the people - granting you leniency for what you did. However to be excused for your actions, one should first admit to them.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[AmiMoJo]

There would need to be guarantees that he wouldn't be tortured like Chelsea Manning, and would be able to have his trial in open court.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

ok dipshit, allow me to actually explain this in a manner that your miniscule brain can understand:

Snowden didn't have any other way to get this CRIMINALITY into the public eye. We know what it looks like when people try to do the right thing - Binney, Tice, Drake, etc etc. If you make it impossible to legally expose criminal behavior in government and then demand people who violate those strictures face criminal sanction, you are guaranteeing that government criminality and overreach can never be stopped or exposed.

To use an analogy, if I were to steal every single thing you own and then slap a gag order on you which prevents you from reporting my theft to the police or the courts, you have no recourse whatsoever and I can commit criminal acts with impunity. Acts like Snowden's are necessary if these gross injustices are to be corrected or stopped at all, and morons like you who demand that he voluntarily submit to the kind of treatment that Manning has received make it less likely that the public will see or know about these problems.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Pseudonym]

My preference is to follow the letter of the law.

Assuming the law is not an ass, that's also my preference.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Presumably you, too, would prefer that he was allowed to make a public interest defense?

Which isn't made more likely by allowing cameras in the courtroom. I'm don't think he should get to grandstand as a substitute for a defense.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Pseudonym]

I'm don't think he should get to grandstand as a substitute for a defense.

Yeah, I'm not in favour of allowing cameras in the courtroom either, but then, I don't live in a country where that happens.

Oh, and FWIW, I don't think politicians should get to grandstand as a substitute for a prosecution, but they do it anyway, just on a bigger scale.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you familiar with the US legal system? Or the political climate? Any trial against Snowden would be nothing more than show.

However, why are we still discussing Edward Snowden and not the criminals he exposed? Let them stand trial first. It has been years and so far, the crimes have not even been halted. In all likelihood, they are probably doing even more evil things right now than when Snowden worked for the NSA.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

well, and the coward would have to come back in order to have any day in court where he could speak up as to why.

however, he's already told us why. and that "why" doesn't matter when you're a traitor.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[dwillden]

Citation needed. The Espionage Act does not supersede the Constitution and Bill of Rights which guarantee the right to defend yourself in court.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[firewrought]

Defending the constitution against a corrupt government sets a pretty damn great precedence if you ask me.
Let's have trials for the people who enabled and engaged in warrant-less surveillance first.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably you, too, would prefer that he was allowed to make a public interest defense?

Which isn't made more likely by allowing cameras in the courtroom. I'm don't think he should get to grandstand as a substitute for a defense.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The only permissible "defense" for a prosecution under the Espionage Act is "I didn't do it, and here is proof I didn't do it". But it would be ridiculous for Snowden to deny what he did, and so the verdict is hard-wired to "guilty" and neither judge nor jury have any leeway about giving him the full penalty. Under the Espionage Act, there is no defending his acts permitted, only denying them.

This is not a "trial" of any kind, it is an administrative act since the penalty is predetermined. That has nothing to do with "grandstanding".

Read the records of the Ellsberg prosecution: when Ellsberg's attorney tried justifying Ellsberg's actions, the judge cut him off and silenced him. The only reason Ellsberg was not put into jail for decades was because the prosecution indulged in burglary, illegal wiretapping, breach of physician/patient privilege, falsification of documents and other shenanigans, finally making the judge throw the whole case out of court because he declared it impossible to deliver justice under such conditions. Ellsberg was never acquitted.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who is displeased with how Snowden went about this, I'm not opposed to the idea of a pardon. However I don't believe a carte blanche pardon is appropriate, or sets good precedence.

What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial. And then, once the trial is complete, a pardon can be issued if necessary. Even if what Snowden did was ultimately a good thing, I believe there still needs to be repercussions for it - that he needs to take responsibility for his actions. A trial to firmly establish the facts of the case and whether he did anything against the law, even if it can only end in not-guilty or a presidential pardon, is something I think would be a reasonable compromise.

Clearly, rsmith-mac is of the "lawful neutral" mentality. We should follow the letter of the law as it is written and there should be no room for interpretation of intent or greater good/bad/ugly whatever else comes in the mix. I pity you for not being able to see the bigger picture.

The problem here is that we've never seen such a large-scale invasion privacy (and I would STRONGLY argue that this constitutes a 4th Amendment violation as well) by a government agency. What would you propose he had done instead? Go straight to his congressmen and tell them he *might* have information that would implicate the NSA in the largest secret spying campaign ever known in the history of the world? Who do you think authorized the NSA to do all of this in the first place? It probably wasn't EVERY member of congress, but I would sure be willing to bet that there were enough "off the record meetings" on the subject to fill in the gaps of what the NSA was supposed to do with the $600 billion (hyperbole, ok?) budget they are given each year. You think Snowden's congressmen would do anything with this information? They would probably have buried the information and Snowden in the same hole.

In a case where the stakes were this high and the scale was this vast, WHO, pray tell, would you report these actions to? Snowden saw no other choice than the route he took. It may not have been "legal" to do many of the things he did, but then again, when you look at the PRINCIPLES behind the U.S. Constitution, and not what bullshit legislative measures from congress are there to try and negate these principles (see: Patriot Act, NDAA, any number of other "defense-oriented" bills that turn the metaphorical gun to point at American citizens instead of external threats), it quickly becomes clear that Snowden took EXACTLY the measures which were necessary in this situation.

There was no other way this information would have made it into the public eye without disseminating that information through public channels. And there is no way any of us would have known the extent to which we are threatened by our own government agencies without having the details of what capabilities they possess.

There is also no way Snowden will get a "fair" trial under the Espionage Act. He will instead get a show trial, where his fate is determined even before the proceedings start. Regardless of whether or not he gets a trial, his ONLY option if he wants to return home without spending the rest of his life in jail would be to receive a pardon.

Do us all a favor, and stop measuring actions by whether they "follow the rules", and whether or not they're for the greater good.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

A show trial is never your day in court.

He can only defend the principle of his actions by submitting to the law and forcing the government and citizenry to countenance the reality of his "crimes" and the corresponding punishment. Whether it is a "show trial" is irrelevant.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[david_thornley]

He is allowed to defend himself against violations of the Espionage Act. He might not be allowed to bring things into the trial that have no legal relevance.

Snowden would be convicted in a perfectly fair trial. There's no doubt about his commission of crimes. There's really no point in having a trial.

I want the guy pardoned, which is the proper way to deal with someone who broke the law for very good reasons.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "He might not be allowed to bring things into the trial that have no legal relevance."

OK, point of order here. If *ahem* someone wanted to subvert justice and ensure punishment of Snowden, then simply expand the definition of "no legal relevance". Also, have you not been paying attention? Since 9/11, all kinds of trials have been held and evidence has been withheld from trials simply by declaring that evidence "secret" and "not in the national interest". Witnesses have suborned justice by claiming that appearing on the stand, in open trial, would expose their roles in espionage. And it has all happened with the more-or-less willing participation of the justice system itself.

I have a good comfort level that the government would pull out all the stops to convict Snowden and ensure that he gets the proverbial book thrown at him. That includes playing by rules taken from the Guantanamo playbook. Snowden made the government look bad. He made the Three Letter Agencies look bad. He made the Presidential administration look bad. They want him to pay and they want him bad.

Re:Trial and Then Pardon

[david_thornley]

By "no legal relevance", I mean not relevant to the laws that the defendent is alleged to have broken. I agree that there have been deliberately unfair trials and abuses of the rules of evidence, etc., but the government would not need to do this to convict Snowden. Snowden violated the law in a major way, and there's plenty of evidence to support that. Given a perfectly fair trial, Snowden would be convicted on felony charges.

This is why I maintain that a pardon is the way to go, rather than screwing with trials to have them return the wrong verdicts.

Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spying

[schwit1]

However, his revelations of the NSA's foreign activities crossed the line and makes him a traitor.

I see you didn't get the memo.

[gatfirls]

You are either for drawing and quartering him or for complete pardon. No in between here folks.

Re:I see you didn't get the memo.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are either for drawing and quartering him or for complete pardon. No in between here folks.

Worked for Eric Holder.
Worked for all those liars and warmongers in the Bush administration.
Works for Hillary.
That is the way with Snowden too.

The only real question is which option is he going to get.

Embarassing the government == great resume bullet

[TiggertheMad]

He will have a trivial time finding employment with people and companies that share his values. The Feds will never give him a clearance again (OH NOES!), but he will have no problem at all finding a really good job.

Well.. he pardoned the gay community

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not? If Obummer is willing to go around congress and the American people to force same-sex marriage upon everyone... I'm sure he can let one traitor slide.

Re:Well.. he pardoned the gay community

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolololo!!

I love this song!!

The man is a traitor and should be bought shots

[TiggertheMad]

He committed Treason. There is no excuse, no "okay, this time it was okay". Treason. While you approve of what he let out, how he did it and why he did it make him a traitor. We need to stop glorifying him.

....Along with those treasonous bastards who formed the country. Every one of them were traitors, inciting revolution an revolt against the King. Suffering a single traitor is to invite ruin and the decay of Executive and Federal authority!

Re:The man is a traitor and should be bought shots

[Anonymous Coward]

Point taken, if he manages to create a democratic republic out of Russia, then he can live there without threat

FYI, the British did march on Washington DC AFTER the US was a sovereign nation, and they would have probably stretched the necks on more than one traitor if they had a chance

Re:The man is a traitor and should be bought shots

[quenda]

FYI, the British did march on Washington DC AFTER the US was a sovereign nation,

Well, you had just invaded Canada, while Britain was busy with Napoleon.

and they would have probably stretched the necks on more than one traitor if they had a chance

Not after the Paris Treaty of 1783. One of those traitors even became ambassador to Great Britain.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be bought shots

[amiga3D]

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

Re:The man is a traitor and should be bought shots

[Anonymous Coward]

traitors against the crown of England, yup.

I don't see Snowden forming his own country via revolution.

apples and oranges.

Re:The man is a traitor and should be bought shots

[ebvwfbw]

Now that's a goddamn lie. Their parents were all married at the time they were born.

They were treasonous, however. They all knew they had to hang together or they would hang separately.

Just as committing Treason against the US... could be hazardous to your health.

Oliver Stone?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already been a movie about Edward Snowden, called Citizen 4. Oliver Stone has publicly stated (in reference to his Nixon movie) that he doesn't believe his "art" need fret over truth. He has a history of making fiction about factual history. I make a point of not seeing Oliver Stone movies for that reason. Let him write fiction if he wants to make it up... Hardly a good venue for educating the public about Snowden.

List of people already pardoned by Obama

[aberglas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I count 57. Bigger number for Bush, and other presidents.

Number of ever people pardoned that embarrassed a government: 0.
(Possible exception during the revolution, when the rebels became the government.)

Obama is deeply conservative. Hell will freeze over before he would pardon Snowden.

And let us not forget CIA director George Tenet was given a Presidential Medal of Freedom for lying about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. Resulted in many thousands of dead. Never challenged by Obama. Because Tenet worked for the system. Snowden worked against the system.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

ah - you're one of those who believes there weren't ever WMD in Iraq....lots of dead kurds who were gassed would beg to differ.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[SadButResolved]

Obama conservative. Right. Trump will probably give him whistleblower status and this is over.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[T.E.D.]

Obama is deeply conservative. Hell will freeze over before he would pardon Snowden.

It goes deeper than that. Wikileaks has basically become Russia's proxy in backing Trump this election. Trump is of course the candidate of the other party.

Not only does Wikileaks know damn well where their info is coming from, and why, but they seem on board with the agenda. They've been tweeting material from their official twitter account mocking the Democratic candidate, and no such material mocking the Republican one. The Republican of course has been consistently hiding more information this election. No medical records, no financial records, ... (Shame there's no anonymous source those could be leaked to and published from, huh?)

So what did Snowden do again? Oh yeah, he gave classified info to this group that is right now collaborating with Russia to weaken America by interfering in our election to elect a pro-Putin anti-NATO candidate. Also, (arguably) helping the other political party too. Where's Snowden been all this time? In Russia.

So a pardon for that guy? Yeah...that's not gonna happen.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the WMD that were found all over Iraq, that we lost troops to IED's made out of, That Syria has used against their own people when they have had no known production of? The only lie is you claiming that he lied.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

IEDs are not WMD.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, we actually supported the gassing of the Kurds. Or at least we did not complain. A young Rumsfield (under Reagan) was sent to Iraq to tell Hussein not to worry about it. Iran was evil, Iraq was fighting Iran, so Iraq was good.

But that was over a decade before the Tenet incident which is being referred to above. Obviously.

I really do not get conservatives. Completely oblivious to any facts that conflict with their predetermined views.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

So what did Snowden do again? Oh yeah, he gave classified info to [Wikileaks] that is right now collaborating with Russia to weaken America by interfering in our election to elect a pro-Putin anti-NATO candidate.

Are you confusing Manning and Snowden? This is about Snowden. Pay attention. Snowden gave his data to carefully selected journalists tasked with filtering the data in order not to cause damage to the U.S. outside of the consequences of revealing the illegal actions of their government.

Successfully so. There is not a single known casualty as a consequence of the disclosures.

Also, (arguably) helping the other political party too. Where's Snowden been all this time? In Russia.

Because the U.S. illegally invalidated his passport while he was in transit. It's not like he got washed up there by his own choice.

So a pardon for that guy? Yeah...that's not gonna happen.

Well, even in a show trial under the Espionage Act your kind of nonsense would not stick. Getting the facts right would be the only "defense" permitted to Snowden. Still no option for judge and jury other than "Guilty, full penalty." That's what Espionage Act means. Short of getting the wrong guy, the verdict is hardwired.

Re:List of people already pardoned by Obama

[BranMan]

The courts seem to differ with you - see the trial of the Boston Marathon bomber

Let me be honest

[Beeftopia]

I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved. I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.

Yeah, I get the typical standard response of wrapping oneself in the 13-starred early American flag wearing a 3 pointed hat, and shouting, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety!" I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution.

If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it. But there isn't so I feel comfortable communicating embarrassing information and even communicating thoughtcrime from time to time. But if someone did get on the government's national security radar, I'd want the government to be able to surveil them in the hope that it might save lives. And in saying I'm okay with it for another means I must accept that risk/inconvenience for myself. Because, like I said, I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.

Having said all that, I do respect Edward Snowden for his courage and for bringing this out into the light, and not letting the program run away. I wouldn't want to see NSA employees using the infrastructure to gather LOVEINT, i.e. stalk ex-girlfriends, or politicians using the infrastructure to gather opposition research and the like. On the other hand I personally wouldn't hire Snowden because I get the impression if he saw something that went against his grain, he'd divulge company secrets in a heartbeat.

Re:Let me be honest

[currently_awake]

1-You are willing to lose your basic human rights for the convenience of the government. If the government had caught or killed any terrorists because of the spying they would be bragging about it to end the complaints. 2-The government is a bigger threat to the American people than the terrorists are (more people killed, more abducted, more theft, more illegal drugs imported etc), so letting the government have more power without even asking for it (legislative process) makes you less safe.

Re:Let me be honest

[Anonymous Coward]

If some law enforcement official can convince a judge that my phone specifically should be tapped for some limited time and some limited purpose, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would concede that it's probably legal. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Re:Let me be honest

[UpnAtom]

I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved.

Apparently, it can't, else at least one govt would have provided evidence of that. But I'm also guessing you'd ban cars, guns and junk food, as they kill around 10,000x as many people as terrorists.

I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government.

It's also repeatedly demonstrated throughout the world that whistleblowers, journalists and the public they protect will be worse off.

If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it.

a) You'd never know you were under surveillance so you'd never get to challenge it.
b) Are you dumb enough to take the govt's word for it or should a judge get to make that decision?

Re:Let me be honest

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets be honest. If we were not messing in other countries to get their oil, we wouldn't have so many terrorist problems. If we weren't blowing up people with drones, innocent wedding parties, we wouldn't be having so many terrorist problems. Why not pardon Manning too, he reported war crimes by our contractors. We live in a corrupt system unfortunately so I doubt either one of them will be pardoned.

Re:Let me be honest

[Leuf]

"I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution."

When the Constitution can be set aside whenever it suits the government then no, you aren't still covered. They've already shredded the 4th. They would like to take away the 2nd based on your name being placed, without any due process,on a secret list that you aren't allowed to know you are on.

It's fine to be in favor of changing your Constitutional rights. But they have to do it the right way, by actually amending them rather than just doing whatever they want whenever they want or the whole thing becomes meaningless.

Yeah...

[buss_error]

...That's not gonna happen. (A pardon).

Tons of people blow their stack over Snowden's leaks. They are misguided and wrong in my opinion. What I've seen does not detail or risk named people (I may have missed something) but does bright line where our own government is breaking the law, and not just a little bit.

Look, crazy people will be able to harm us, no question. It's not giving away our own liberty and justice in the process of trying to stop them that makes the difference between an oppressive, unjust government and one that we say we want.

Re:Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those people will emerge from the movie more educated about surveillance and with more positive attitudes toward Snowden."

Hummm... I can't wait to emerge from this movie "more educated". It will be just like that Noah movie where I was "educated" that Noah was a hallucinogenic drug user that hated babies and talked to giant rock people. I'm sure the Snowden movie will "educate" me as well.

Proofreading a lost art?

[fnj]

emerge from the movie more education

All right. Who proofread that little gem?

Bravery includes putting your name on it?

[shanen]

I can't see the AC troll you're replying to, but I was able to see your comment only because it got enough positive mod points to raise it to visibility.

Actually, I understand not putting your name on it. Get your own NSA file right here from slashdot. Now do you actually think they can't get your identity if they care that much?

Sad, but that's the reality of where America is now. Actually, I can go you a couple of notches higher on the paranoia scale. I think Snowden was probably played for a fool, and he didn't disclose anything that the NSA and CIA didn't agree on. If they couldn't figure out his personality and start watching him before he started collecting the documents, then they are seriously incompetent.

They might have included a few real tidbits in there to give his "leak" plausibility, but I think the real dirt is still under the rug, and the real goal was to crank up the paranoia so people like you are afraid to criticize the government in public.

Now if I ever saw a mod point to give, I'd look for a joke to mod up. Not a one so far.

The NSA works for President Obama

[jfdavis668]

Snowden released documents about the activities of the NSA under President Obama. I seriously doubt the President was happy about that.

Re:Embarassing the government == great resume bull

[BarbaraHudson]

He doesn't even need a job. He'll make enough from book deals, tv appearances, guest editorials, and the rubber chicken circuit.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really?

No. They were bringing war-time technology home to bear on the American people. This is essentially a watered down version of posse comitatus. Sure, they're not firing machine guns and nukes at us but they're using an all manner of high-tech spy gear. Ultimately if the government wants to hang your ass from the rafters they don't need much. We're all guilty of something.

Remember the government are conducting a data swap-meet with foreign governments right now. That's an end-run around the law. They can't always spy on us but other governments are happy to step in and break the law on their behalf. Our government also seems way too willing to buy these ill-gotten spicy details. Meanwhile if I buy a counterfeit Rolex off the back of a lorry it's ME that's in trouble. See how that works?

Irrelavent

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is moot. It is never going to happen. Let's say for a minute that it does, and Mr Snowden is allowed to return to the US for a "fair" trial (if he wants). Is there anyone here that actually believes he wouldn't have a fatal car "accident" on his way to the courthouse?

Obama should pardon everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

All persons who committed an offence against the United States, whether adjudicated or not, with a full removal of their sentences. This would save the government the cost of incarceration for years,cut down the federal caseload and leave the problem for others.

What are they going to do? Stop it?

Re:Obama should pardon everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Line 'em up and shoot 'em dead instead.

They have two chances of that happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Slim and none.

Snowden cannot be pardoned

[Anonymous Coward]

until there is popular American will to do so (maybe never).

The only plausible way the pardon will happen

[Gavagai80]

Perhaps if Trump wins the presidency, Obama will use his last day in office to pardon Snowden -- simply to create a vocal domestic critic of spying during Trump's presidency in the hope of weakening his domestic spying powers. Not probable, but possible. If Clinton wins, it seems very unlikely he'd unleash a critic on her on his way out the door unless there's more animosity between them than is apparent. If Johnson or Stein wins, of course, then Obama doesn't need to do it because they will.

Re:The only plausible way the pardon will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't matter - i'm sure there's some additional charges that could be brought against snowden...and the govt would just wait until his cowardly ass came back, or were in a country that would extradite him back.

and none of it matters. not like snowden would have an opportunity at longevity and the pursuit of happiness....

Not Gonna Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden above all others showed without question that Barak Hussein Obama is a lair.

Like Nixon, Obama treasures loyalty to him above anything else.

So, dead as a door nail.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

However, his revelations of the NSA's foreign activities crossed the line and makes him a traitor.

If his actions crossed the line and makes him a traitor, then I can only presume you must believe that everyone at the NSA is even worse than a traitor for their actions. So, given that the NSA and all its members are still on US soil, were's the call for them to be arrested and charged with treason? Or, you know, we could just push them all on a boat 201 nautical miles off the US (in international waters) and nuke them. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic part is: immediately after the leak, you could ask any "tech" person, and we'd all say the exact same thing: "I knew that. I thought everyone knew that."
IMO if Snowden had wanted to be a whistle-blower, he could have just said "hey news media, remember those stories from a few years ago?"

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the line be truly known, when 'foreign' and 'domestic' activities are subject to such gaping loopholes as allowed by the Five-Eyes arrangement? Those trans-national backdoor deals were *explicitly* designed to confuse and obfuscate what constitutes foreign vs. domestic surveillance.

I don't recall being asked on a ballot whether I wanted any of the above-mentioned ass-fuckery to be performed on my behalf.

No way the president pardons Mr. Snowden

[bjdevil66]

He was calling him a "hacker" in the beginning, either trying to cover it up or just flat out being ignorant about the facts. Either way, it looks bad for Obama to even talk about him ever again.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[RespekMyAthorati]

However, his revelations of the NSA's foreign activities crossed the line and makes him a patriot.

FTFY.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I don't recall being asked on a ballot whether I wanted any of the above-mentioned ass-fuckery to be performed on my behalf.

Probably because we votge for representatives, not issue by issue. Don't like it, what have you done about it? Contributed money to a better candidate? Canvassed for them? Run yourself? Heck, even vote?

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

However, his revelations of the NSA's foreign activities crossed the line and makes him a traitor.

Here we go again...

You have it backwards. Snowden's actions make him a patriot. Your inability (or unwillingness) to see this is unfortunate, but does not change the fact in any way.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

>his revelations of the NSA's foreign activities crossed the line

What line, how did he cross it? This kind of generalization is weak and does not contribute to the debate. Please explain your reasoning.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

How does NSA foreign activities benefit the average US citizen? If there is no benefit, then who has he betrayed?

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the foreign activities of the NSA that crossed the line, not the fact that Edward Snowden reported them.

The US government can do whatever they wish in the US, as long as the majority of US citizens support it. However, outside US jurisdiction, they have to follow applicable local laws. Snowden's documents clearly show illegal activities on a massive scale. Those responsible should be arrested and extradicted.

But ...

[John Da' Baddest]

Snowden himself isn't begging your pardon, he just wants a fair trial; "fair" in the sense that he can use a "public interest" defense (whistleblower) instead of having it automatically disqualified. This is something Congress could (and should) allow.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sno...

As I see it, Clinton (with her email server) and Snowden are either both innocent or both guilty of disclosures. Maybe Obama could pardon Clinton on his way out, for any non-crimes she may or may not have accidentally committed during her dutiful years.

Re:But ...

[JustNiz]

Between the US Gov. and him, I can't figure out who is more naive. All it would take is the gov to agree to whatever just to get him physically back in the US, then they pick/pay-off a judge who will pound his ass no matter what he claims.

Re:But ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden himself isn't begging your pardon, he just wants a fair trial; "fair" in the sense that he can use a "public interest" defense (whistleblower) instead of having it automatically disqualified

The concept of "automatic disqualification" is completely invalid: it violates the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land. There can be NO SUCH THING in a land whose highest law retains unspecified rights to the people (9th Amendment), and reserves unspecified rights to the people (10th Amendment). Any action taken in the public interest becomes protected as an exercise of rights retained by and reserved to the people.

When lessor law, such as acts of Congress, comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights wins. No exceptions.

Statements by any lawyer to the contrary are purely a function of ethical conflict of interest: the legal profession hates the open-ended aspect of the Bill of Rights, because when it operates, it reduces the demand for their services. US legal history clearly shows this to any rational observer. The status quo in US law is a massively unethical one.

So Snowdon isn't just against corrupt elements in US government, he's also up against a massively unethical legal profession with a huge vested interest in the current unethical status quo.

This isn't the first time this has happened, of course. Slavery existed for much the same reasons as the current problems in law, and the Jim Crow laws were allowed to exist for much the same reason. It seems as though every few generations we have to prune back the ethics problems in law.

OP is right..

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a traitor. He deserves death.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is a traitor. Even if Obama were to "pardon" him for something he's not yet been convicted of....doesn't mean that he'll be able to just come back to the states.

He's a coward.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He broke the law. Plain and simple. There are other ways to achieve change rather than compromising so many sensitive and critical programs.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[silentcoder]

>on a boat 201 nautical miles off the US (in international waters) and nuke them
You would kill every fish, octopus, whale, dolphin, narwhal and crab in a 30 mile radius? ...
You must really, really hate the beach.

Nah, I say strap 'em to an ICBM and launch it, set to explode in Low Earth Orbit.

With a little luck, the EMP will knock out some of their spysatelites while we're at it, and probably some Chinese ones too. ...may want to make sure you time the launch for when the ISS is on the other side of the planet though...

No can do

[Anonymous Coward]

If Snowden had just released information regarding domestic spying, I could go along with a pardon. However, when he released how the US spied on other nations, he crossed the line.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

Compromising legitimate and legal intelligence collection activities that are the task and mission of the NSA does not make one a Patriot. Only an idiot could make that leap of twisted logic.

Pardon a criminal??

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why criminals should get pardons. Snowden should be tried on the merits of what he did and, if found guilty, the punishment should fit the crime.

Pardon?? They why have security clearances or classified information?

No, a pardon is unimaginable. If there is a pardon, we might as well hang it all up and say there's no point enforcing laws.

FWIW, yes I believe Hillary should also have been tried. The privacy debate is critical. That's no reason to compromise so many classified programs in the process.

Despite the lack of fairness in the system, that's no reason to throw our hands up and cease law enforcement.

Not only no....

[Anonymous Coward]

But hell no!

Quite a Dilemma...

[Whatchamacallit]

Snowden alerted the world to unprecedented civilian surveillance by not only the NSA but also American allies surveillance This Orwellian surveillance of Americans is supposed to be illegal. Smartphones and social media are a god send to intelligence operators. They had full reign of every single smartphone on the planet. Every human carried a microphone, GPS, and camera and everything they sent or received could be intercepted. Talk about the holy grail of intelligence gathering! The insight revealed in the WikiLeaks published by Snowden have led to new security and encryption to be implemented everywhere. On the one hand I don't like the government spying on civilians so I like the idea that tech companies up their game as a result.

At the same time, he revealed this secret surveillance, methods, and abilities to our enemies who are now able to adapt and avoid detection and surveillance. That is a clear example of aiding the enemy and is downright treasonous. I would much prefer not to be under surveillance but the enemy is literally among us within the civilian population and that has not changed, in fact it's greatly increased in the last eight years.

So what to do about Snowden... Well I do not agree he should be pardoned, quite the opposite. He has blown wide open the biggest of classified top secret intelligence documenting just about all of the intelligence communities abilities and methods. It is the biggest leak in history. The damage done is enormous to the safety and security of the US and our allies to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. Even today he is being allowed to video conference and be paid for speaking to various groups as a privacy advocate. The man should be assassinated even in Russia. If he is ever captured he should be just made to disappear. Yes, I mean shoot him in the head and dump him in the sea like Osama Bin Laden. He is a treasonous bastard of epic proportions. He has betrayed everyone with a security clearance. He has betrayed his country. He has put many lives at risk and he has destroyed valuable methods of intelligence by revealing their existence. The damage done is absolutely enormous. If anyone deserves to die for treason it is Snowden.

FYI, I also agree that Hillary Clinton should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors and imprisoned for no less than 15 years. She should have her security clearance revoked immediately and she should be ineligible to run for the presidency. I also know that Obama's birth certificate is fake, it was released in PDF format and was clearly doctored. I don't believe Hawaii even has a real microfiche copy of his birth certificate on file, I believe they took another one and doctored it and released the PDF but they were stupid enough to not merge the layers first. I believe that Obama was not born in the US but overseas. I believe that he is a Marxist and he has done more damage to the USA than even Snowden's treason. He has cut the military dramatically, reduced our nuclear weapons, alienated our allies, embraced and emboldened our enemies, caused the Arab Spring which has destabilized the entire middle east, pulled troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan which has allowed ISIS to grow, released Guantanamo Bay terrorists who re-took the battlefield, kept the US economy strangled to prevent recovery, enabled riots in the streets and increased racism and hate groups such as the New Black Panthers and BLK, etc. I do not believe he is incompetent I believe this is all intentional. No president has ever done so much damage in history except for perhaps Nero of Rome.

God Help Us All... It's either build a bunker, stockpile weapons and food or ready onesself for the Rapture and Armageddon. We are so close to WWIII it is not funny. China and Russia have been ramping up their militaries at a very rapid pace while we downsize our own. Threats against the USA continue to mount.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you have it backwards. Your inability to see this means you have absolutely no idea what you are even talking about. But that does not change the fact in any way that he compromised several fully legitimate and lawful foreign intelligence collection efforts. He is a traitor.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[dwillden]

They are the entire purpose, goal and mission of the NSA. They benefit the average US Citizen by developing the intelligence our diplomatic and military agencies need to conduct international affairs and military operations needed to protect the US and Our Economic interests.

It will never happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

President Obama will never pardon Snowden for his real crime: Embarrassing his administration by actually delivering the kind of change he promised to be. Agree or disagree with Snowden, there was no upside for HIM to do what he did. Snowden did what he did in service to the American people. If politicians ACTUALLY served the _people_, Congress wouldn't enjoy an approval rating lower than the King of England's at the time of the American Revolution. If there is anything that Edward Snowden has reminded us, its that the rights we enjoy are not free but rather purchased through the sacrifices of others. I'm not saying he's worthy of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, but he's certainly sacrificed a lot more than most of our elected officials who wage multiple wars in our name with little to no fear of THEIR KIDS ever being placed in harm's way.

Constitution is for losers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not following. Sorry. And calling me stupid isn't helping me see your point.

Are there actual changes in gun laws where you live?

There are many many restrictive gun laws in a lot of different states which force people to go through hoops and hoops of redundant forms, permits, licenses, background checks, and in person interviews.

Take where I live, Massachusetts, the AG here just issued new guidelines that make it crystal clear that pretty much any gun could be considered an assault rifle, but she won't say which ones. She just threatened anyone violating her secret list with a felony.

Previous AGs have also abused their power by declaring particular guns to not meet Massachusetts safety requirements for consumer sales, like the commonly used Glock pistol (also commonly used by Massachusetts police), without actually saying how they could in fact meet safety guidelines.

Leaving it up to Glock as a corporation to iteratively provide the Massachusetts AG with new guns for destructive testing until the AG arbitrarily deemed them safe for use by the Massachusetts residents. I mean for fuck sake all they needed to do was to tell Glock that the load indicator needed to protrude x number of millimeters. Instead they just said it wasn't "enough" like they just somehow they will know it when they see it...I know BS when I see it.

Then you have another state agency issuing a competing lists of guns that are and are not legal in Massachusetts and at the end it just says see the AG for additional requirements. So you have a list of guns that are legal in Massachusetts that at the end of the list just says it really isn't a list of legal guns because the AG can say whatever the AG wants.

It is regulation for the pretty overt purpose of harassment in order to make it harder and harder and harder to own guns and criminalize trivial acts of non-compliance in pursuit of an ideological agenda to make sure the only people with guns are the police, military and the criminals, not actually common sense gun safety to make it safer for citizens to own guns or to go after violent criminals.

Re:Constitution is for losers.

[gumbi west]

If gun owners would accept any accountability at all, I'd agree that there were some issues, but there is absolutely no acceptance that guns are a problem. You probably can't even admit that a pistol grip makes killing lots of people easier (there is a reason the militaries developed this grip--and it wasn't for show). You probably also deny what I've seen war surgeons report over and over: high power assault rifles are much worse. High speed rounds will absolutely pulverize a whole regions of the body. http://articles.philly.com/201...

I also don't see why gun owner ship should be easier than car ownership. Why not prove proficiency, residence, and insurance? If there were some accountability it would be different. But there isn't. Especially with legally purchased fire arms being used in crimes so often it's not even real that this isn't required. Look at Bloomberg's work on this on trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in NYC only to have other states sell them to criminals. Look at the fast and furious sting where they had to let guns walk because there was no law that they would bring them in under. It's just outrageous that we literally have laws designed to keep Mexican drug cartels supplied with arms because it makes the gun makers so much money.

I also fail to see the purpose of the AR-15 type high power assault rifles outside of a war zone. I'm not alone in this. Professionals (retired military generals) agree that the M-4/M-16 knockoffs have no place outside the military. I agree with them. I don't want to live in a war zone.

Snowden exposed a criminal conspiracy to the press

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden let journalists see classified documents in order to expose a criminal conspiracy against the American people

IG, Congress, etc.

[sh00z]

^^ This. ^^

I'm not planning on spending any of my hard-earned cash on this movie, so can somebody tell me if it explains his rationale for not taking advantage of any of the LEGAL options that were available to him?

Re:IG, Congress, etc.

[Wain13001]

Which legal options are those?

Re:IG, Congress, etc.

[sh00z]

Like I said,

https://oig.ssa.gov/whistleblo...

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/index....

https://oversight.house.gov/su... (the "Blow the Whistle" link)

Intelligence Committee were in on the criminality

[Anonymous Coward]

Baloney. Snowden should have gone to Congress.

Because of the classified nature of the revelations it would have had to go to the Intelligence committee... who were the ones complicit in the criminal and unconstitutional activities. The only way to bring it to the attention of the full Congress was to make it public.

Let's vote on it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If ever there was a case where public sentiment should be honored it is now. Either we are a country that respects liberty and will support a pardon or we are a den of thieves who have stolen Liberty from our children.

Another Reason To vote for Gov. Johnson

[bigpat]

Gov. Johnson would certainly pardon Snowden. A vote for either Clinton or Trump is a vote against Liberty.

Re:Snowden exposed a criminal conspiracy to the pr

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah ,,, the "journalists" from the PRC and KGB.

How about a trial for the actual lawbreakers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd like to see is the people Snowden exposed as breaking US laws stand trial.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the entire purpose, goal and mission of the NSA.

Which is saying nothing. That's like defending the Nazi's actions by saying that's what they're about. (Yea, Godwin and everything, but honestly it seems pretty clear that the NSA's mission and goals are in conflict with the US Constitution.)

They benefit the average US Citizen by developing the intelligence our diplomatic and military agencies need to conduct international affairs

Like stopping 9/11. Oh, right. Well, what about stopping that Paris attack? Finding Bin Laden? Oh, right, they either don't care or incapable of doing the job, even WITH all their clusterfucking of us.

and military operations needed to protect the US and Our Economic interests.

Congratuations (on the part I bolded). That pretty well sums it up. We, the US, have turned into sycophants of corporatism even when it clearly violates the rights of everyone. We tolerate it because we see it as acceptable to violate our privacy so long as it doesn't otherwise effect our lives or our liberties. The US government, of course, is a benevolent spy. We can trust them*.

So, how's the direct feed of your bathroom cam to the NSA going? For, you know, "developing the intelligence our diplomatic and military agencies need to conduct international affairs and military operations needed to protect the US and Our Economic interests" if ever a foreigner should happen to use your bathroom.

*And honestly, I tend to believe we can generally trust them to violate our privacy for the economic interest of the US. But, golly, that's still a VIOLATION of my right to privacy. If you think my bathroom analogy is hyperbole, well, I don't see why it should be. If you can accept the notion the NSA can and will spy on you, why would you be reluctant to help out? Clearly you don't give a shit about your privacy.

Re:Intelligence Committee were in on the criminali

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a possibility you are overlooking - the activities were constitutional, legal, and authorized. In that case Snowden really screwed everybody.

Re:Yes, if all he'd done was reveal domestic spyin

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you don't know what "traitor" means, or you're lying about what it means.

Which is it?

Because no other possibilities exist, and any attempt to introduce one is absolute proof that it's the second option.

How can he be pardoned?

[tattood]

Edward Snowden has not been convicted in a U.S. court of law, so how can he be pardoned?

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[toadlife]

Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes he hadn't been convicted of yet.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes he hadn't been convicted of yet.

That was to stop that coup that was happening at the time. Trying to nullify the election of 1972. They got Agnew, getting rid of tricky Dick was like a wet dream to the Dems.
Besides, he didn't actually do the crime. He simply covered it up. There was no Federal crime there to prosecute. Just bullshit from the left to try to string it along. Clearly if he fought it he would have beat the rap, and Hillary would have lost her license to practice law and things would be a whole lot different now. Whole lot different. Yea, Hillary was mixed up with the Rose law firm, and such.

What tricky Dick should have done is hung them out to dry. Here are the guys that did it, they didn't do it at my direction, book 'em Danno!

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[BarbaraHudson]

Are you nuts? Nixon was caught on tape conspiring to cover up the Watergate Break-in. Read "All the President's Men." Nixon suborned perjury before Congress, the idea off offering the plumbers a million bucks to stay silent, and then the idea of using a $350,000 campaign contribution to bribe the plumbers, cover-ups, plots to interfere with the FBI investigation, etc., etc. Read the tape transcripts. Nixon was in it up to his eyeballs and resigned rather than face certain impeachment, but only after working out a deal with Ford for a pardon.

He resigned because the tapes and the witnesses were enough to convict him of more than a few crimes.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[BarbaraHudson]

Also, Deep Throat would have testified against him. Having the FBI's #2 man on the stand would have been icing on the cake.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

Not as strong as a stained dress, and that didn't get Bill Clinton convicted. Physical evidence is always stronger. That was a lie before a federal court.
As I said, he didn't have anything to do with the original crime.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

There was never any proof he worked out a deal.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[BarbaraHudson]

Having the people who committed the crimes testifying to his involvement would have gotten him impeached. Whether he was involved before or after doesn't make a difference, same as if you help a killer bury a body. And you don't seem to understand that the cover-up was a crime.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

That's one of the great what-ifs. We'll never know. He may not have been convicted. After all, I thought slick willy was a sure bet to be convicted. A lot of people thought Andrew Johnson would have been convicted too. Today I'd say he certainly would not have been convicted. However you are entitled to your opinion of course. Thanks for responding Barbara.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[BarbaraHudson]

Personally, I think the big problem with the whole Bill Clinton mess was that Hillary didn't show enough strength of character to kick his lying cheating ass to the curb. That would probably have made her a shoo-in in 2008.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[david_thornley]

What was a stained dress supposed to convict Clinton of? The trial made it very clear that he was a real jerk, but that isn't illegal. The dress proved that he had sex with an intern, who was very clear that it was consensual. The trial going on was a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones, and (a) she never presented evidence that what Clinton did was illegal, and (b) whether Clinton had consensual sex with Lewinski was irrelevant to a sexual harassment trial.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

I think I should point out that they're two peas in a pod. She's just like he is. I think that's clear if you think about it for a while.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

You're showing a complete lack of knowledge on what happened. When he made his statement he was testifying under oath in a Federal court and he lied. He lied and the stain shows us that he knew very well, no doubt about it, he knew it. That is what was illegal. Bill as well as Hillary know it. They're both lawyers.

This is a very misunderstood part of that presidency. The media lied like hell to make people think it was about the sex part and not about lying in Federal court in a case. Of course, the real odd part is he should have told the truth. Warren Harding had an illegit kid while in office, admitted it and the whole thing went away.

If she didn't have that dress, this conversation wouldn't even be this way. I bet you'd be saying nothing ever happened. Just like they'd have us believe with Paula Jones, others. Take a look, don't be fooled.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[david_thornley]

The whole deal was about sex, until Clinton lied under oath, and the media kept on about the sex (sex sells, after all). As far as I can tell, the Jones suit should have been dismissed early on, and bringing Lewinski in was the equivalent of slut-shaming a woman as opposed to providing evidence. I know more or less what Jones claimed, and it didn't amount to a violation of the law. I consider that the trial proved that Clinton can be a real jerk, but that's not in fact illegal.

Sexual harassment laws forbade basing any employment decisions (hiring, getting promotions or raises, getting fired or demoted, etc.) on sexual favors, which Jones did not claim happened. They also forbade a sexually hostile work environment, which is another thing Jones didn't claim.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[BarbaraHudson]

And that's why she didn't give him the boot. Hillary likes power just as much as Bill does.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

It was a violation of law. We know it is. They impeached/convicted a federal judge about two weeks before for doing the exact same thing. The Democrats feel they're above the law, or perhaps the law is for other people and their opponents.

Re:How can he be pardoned?

[ebvwfbw]

Something we'll never know. I have a feeling in this great big world - we're nothing. That's fine with me. I don't think I could handle what they go through.

Property rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

If electronic documents can be claimed as "government property" then surely government can be legally kept out of a person's electronic devices and documents, then charged with tresspass if they access them anyway.

Snowden's Layer

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Snowden's layer the transport layer or maybe the network layer? I'm a little confused here.

Mr. President, Pardon Snowden!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. President, pardon Edward Snowden! If your "Yes We Can" sloganeering meant anything, now would be a good time to act in accord with it.

Here are the reasons why you should pardon this patriot:

1). Respect. Snowden fought the largest government and security apparatus on the planet to a draw. That alone should make you respect him;
2). He was a whistle blower, who sounded the privacy alarm at great personal cost. Federal legislation includes no protection at all for whistle blowers, and that is your area of responsibility. You need to do something to protect whistle blowers and you haven't done enough. If you cannot protect Snowden then you can't protect anyone;
3). The damage done by Snowden was mainly done to the illegal and unconstitutional spying apparatus. None of the whistle blowing would have been necessary but for the prior illegality. That prior illegality has persisted under your leadership and by your acquiescence. That situation does not speak well to your legacy;
4). Nixon, Liddy, North. Idiots all, yet they received the coveted Presidential Pardon. Snowden is head and shoulders above those idiots, yet you'd withhold from him, Presidential protection? Who exactly decided on this set of priorities? Did We The People vote on giving corrupt individuals free passes, while principled objectors to wrong-doing go without?
5). Snowden has continued to contribute meaningfully, to debates on security, privacy, freedom and human rights. Snowden is no one-act play. Want to set an example, to contrast America against China, Syria, Russia and North Korea? Then set a contrasting example.

Your actions speak more loudly than your words. Mr. President, Pardon Snowden! Be the change you want for the world. Yes You Can!

Re:Embarassing the government == great resume bull

[Anonymous Coward]

He will have a trivial time finding employment with people and companies that share his values.

He would not be in his current unique position if there were any. Noone in the U.S. would stick out his neck for the Constitution.