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.
Snowden is assuming that a bureaucracy is a thinking, human beast. They don't care. Period. Not their problem. He's been labeled as a "bad guy", and absolutely no one has any incentive or compulsion to change that. Someone else's department. No one cares. US government suffers not one bit. Snowden's life is screwed forever. That's how it works. If you mess with government, they are going to mess with you right back. Problem is they have infinite resources, and that includes time. Your life is finite.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What about his oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies including domestic? The NSA surveillance clearly violates search and seizure and the 4th ammendment, From the US Constitution: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see probable cause determined with the NSA domestic spying programs.
If the US information network were collectively moral, then yes, Snowden would be pardoned and he would end up home and happy. But its like the Great Train Robbery writ large. If you honestly believe that will happen, look at Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and the rat Adrian Lamo. Lamo ratted Manning out to be a hero. Lamo instead showed himself to be a rat (and is rightfully disparaged and has to live in hiding, where rats live). But Manning got 35 years. Now look at people who *didn't* whistleblow, but expressed concern *within the system*. I'm talking about Thomas Drake. He created ThinThread(tm) which lets analysts at the NSA go through massive volumes of data and pinpoint users extremely quickly. Its incredibly accurate, and much more powerful than what the NSA was using: Trailblazer. Drake created Thinthread with built in safeguards to respect the US constitution. Initially the NSA didn't want it, but when Trailblazer performance was horrid, they switched to Thinthread(tm) but without the safeguards. Drake raised his concerns. He was reprimanded by his superiors at the NSA. When he went to a politician (and attorney with security clearance) about the issue (his superiors were playing fast and loose with citizens constitutional rights), he was followed by agents, placed under house arrest and threatened by a district attorney with 30 years in prison. They also threatened his wife and children. This guy is on the inside and trying to do the right thing. Snowden saw what happened to Drake, and went to Russia. The people who threatened Drake are legion. They don't care about "moral thing". They don't even care about "constitutional rights". They are concerned with greed, power, getting ahead, and what Snowden and Drake are advocating --oversight-- is a direct challenge to that. Snowden might be pardoned, but only in history books.
Snowden's not going to get a pardon because bravery is infectious and they want to send a clear message to everyone else who has access to classified information: "We don't care how right you are, we'll hound you to your grave if you embarrass us."
Yes, he is a criminal. He wouldn't be needing a pardon, otherwise.
He had to break the law to reveal how our government was wantonly and routinely breaking the law, to our detriment. Our own government betrayed our trust, and harmed us by doing so, and Snowden sacrificed his liberty to reveal that truth to us.
Hero.
and that is why his whistle blowing, which he did initially, was a GOOD THING.
It was all the rest where he became a traitor telling LEGAL THINGS THAT NSA DOES AND HOW THEY DO IT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Do you honestly think the executive branch had no knowledge of the NSA's domestic spying activities? I'm willing to be ALL branches of government not only knew of these activities, but actively used them for their benefit.
There is no way anyone in government is going to pardon individuals that engage in actions that restrict government authority and power.
He is a hero.
He is a criminal
Those are not mutually exclusive. Why can't he be both?
18 U.S.C. 798. Note how that law has no mention of malicious intent. It doesn't matter whether Snowden had noble intentions when he broke the law; it is still a violation. This is in contrast to other laws he may have broken (like 18 U.S.C 2381) which require making the case that Snowden's goal was to aid the enemies of the United States.
That distinction is important when Snowden claims that he won't get a "fair trial". In a trial, the question is whether the defendant broke the law. A fair trial means the defendant has a fair chance to defend himself. Regarding section 798, Snowden could argue that he wasn't really the one who leaked the information, or could claim that he was misled to believe that Glenn Greenwald was authorized to receive the information, or he could argue that the whole affair is an elaborate conspiracy to frame him. Unfortunately, he's already quite publicly stated that he took classified material about communications intelligence and made it available to the public. He still can get a fair trial just as soon as he sets foot on American soil, but "fair" and "likely to win" are two very different things.
Snowden's motives can then be used during sentencing to argue for a lighter sentence, and that would probably be fairly successful, since the NSA has directly and indirectly admitted some wrongdoing on their own behalf. On the other hand, despite Snowden's claims, there's very little (unclassified) evidence that he actually tried to pursue any legal alternatives, and there's a growing amount of evidence that Snowden's leak benefited foreign parties. That part of the trial will be far more difficult to predict.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Yeah. Its not like treason or anything is against the law.
The American Revolution was illegal as well, consider that...
It's ironic that the government has no problem using an "ends justifies the means" argument when claiming the moral high ground for intrusive technology, such as stinger cell phone trackers, but choke when citizens like Snowden use precisely the same argument to claim the moral high ground for disclosure of government malfeasance.
However a LOT has come out about several people who tried to blow the whistle within the system in the NSA and ended up in deep shit with absolutely nothing done about the problems they tired to expose.
If he wanted anyone outside the NSA to get the news, including the people who are supposed to be running it, there does not appear to have been a way he could do it without breaking the law.
Any president would have tried to catch Snowden at that point in the game. If you don't know what someone has, what they intend, and the eventual consequences of their making off with sensitive information, you keep your options open and try to stop them. Obama probably privately approves of what Snowden did at this point in time (he doesn't seem to be a conservative authoritarian type), but politically he isn't going to get involved because it gets him nothing but flack before he leaves office. He may very well sign a pardon as he walks out the door on the last day, because it will make him look good to historians in the long run, and it cost him nothing politically at that point in time.
Here is the fun and dirty fact about pardons: You could blow up a bus full of nus and orphans on National TV, and if enough people wrote their leaders demanding that you were pardoned, you would get a pardon. They have NOTHING to do with justice or fairness for better or worse. Who knows how Obama really feels about the whole incident? Who knows what public opinion will be after the film comes out. I will wager that if the film gets an Oscar or two, (and the added media attention that comes with that), that Snowden gets pardoned because grandma suddenly learns about the whole story and starts writing her representatives in Washington. If public opinion turns, senators will start falling over each other to get in line and demand he be pardoned. The pardon could very well depend on how much money a Hollywood studio decides to spread around to buy a few awards.
Snowden won't get pardoned because he did something that was morally right, but legally wrong. He will get pardoned (if he gets pardoned) because it makes someone in power look good, or it pisses of the opposition somehow. His pardon won't be about justice, but straight up political gamesmanship.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!