Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden Makes 'Moral' Case For Presidential Pardon (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Edward Snowden has set out the case for Barack Obama granting him a pardon before the U.S. president leaves office in January, arguing that the disclosure of the scale of surveillance by U.S. and British intelligence agencies was not only morally right but had left citizens better off. Speaking on Monday via a video link from Moscow, where he is in exile, Snowden said any evaluation of the consequences of his leak of tens of thousands of National Security Agency and GCHQ documents in 2013 would show clearly that people had benefited. "Yes, there are laws on the books that say one thing, but that is perhaps why the pardon power exists -- for the exceptions, for the things that may seem unlawful in letters on a page but when we look at them morally, when we look at them ethically, when we look at the results, it seems these were necessary things, these were vital things," he said. "I think when people look at the calculations of benefit, it is clear that in the wake of 2013 the laws of our nation changed. The [U.S.] Congress, the courts and the president all changed their policies as a result of these disclosures. At the same time there has never been any public evidence that any individual came to harm as a result." In his wide-ranging interview, Snowden insisted the net public benefit of the NSA leak was clear. "If not for these disclosures, if not for these revelations, we would be worse off," he said. But Snowden still wants to return to the U.S. and seems confident, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that it will happen. "In the fullness of time, I think I will end up back home," he said.
No, you don't have to be convicted to get pardoned...Nixon is the most obvious example. Though, an acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Yeah. Its not like treason or anything is against the law.
This was particularly telling for Brits.
MPs understood they'd killed "Snoopers Charter", yet when they got into power as Home Secretaries (like Theresa May), they learned that GCHQ had done it anyway under the old 1984 Telecoms act, vague clause "can give directions to telecoms companies".
And she said nothing, none of them ever do, they all just shut up and let it continue.
Only when she tried to push "Snoopers Charter" through again, did she explain that they were already doing it, so it wouldn't increase surveillance. (i.e. we have your internet records MPs, all those porn sites you visited, we know your secrets, so don't stop this bill).
Executive branch is FULLY aware of these crimes, they are too scared to rock the boat and challenge the spooks. You can think its to obtain power, but its as much fear as anything.
So we are in the situation now, where GCHQ spies on Brits, hands that data to the NSA, Snowden revealed they use it regardless of any "no spy" agreement, and this continues to this day. We'll never have a free choice of leadership, never have a Home Secretary who'll tackle GCHQ, and Snowden revealed how bad it had gotten, to his own detriment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data
Thanks Snowden, I know it was a sacrifice, but it was appreciated.