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.
The reality is if Edward Snowden can only ever receive a pardon if those he exposed corruptly committing crimes against the US constitution and against their oaths are prosecuted for those crimes and that will never happen. The current corrupt administration can not on one hand claim that what Edward Snowden did was morally correct and legally bound to the principle that you can not obey illegal orders and keep crimes secret, whilst claiming all those criminals who committed those crimes for low to high and by high the office of President and the heads of those organisations committing those crimes, should not be prosecuted to the extent of pretending crimes were not crimes.
So can't happen and in fact those corrupt con artists at the top want to reinforce the idea that if you expose insider corruption you will suffer up to and including having your throat crushed, being shot in the back, having your car blown up, stripped naked, sexually abused (not once but for years) and that is just a start.
The only legacy those arse holes give a crap about is how fat their off shore tax haven bank account is and they are as strictly shallow as that. Oh and ensuring their replacements are as equally corrupt so their crimes will not be exposed and if exposed ignored and not prosecuted, hence Clinton to replace Obama. How many high level crimes have been exposed and ignored, not once but repeatedly over the last couple of decades.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The migration of liberty activists to New Hampshire will welcome him should we ever win independence. The movement is strong gaining new movers every week and unlike other movements has only grown larger over the years. There is no place in New Hampshire that you won't find a growing, active, no thriving community of activists who are fighting government and we're going to win because we have time. We have patience. The people want liberty will and are moving for it. And unlike setting up a new country or trying to take over one there are no restrictions within the boarders of the United States to hamper the movement. If you believe that the state should not utilize violence to achieve political goals (like educating our children, feeding our hungry, or locking up people who've committed no violence against another) then you should move to New Hampshire. We want to get rid of drivers licenses, license plates, and having to ask the government permission to earn a a living. Keene, the town where I live, of less than 30,000 people is already the # one place in the world for BitCoins. We can build other non-governmental systems that don't utilize force to ensure the safety of our restaurants. We accept that life has some risk and that it's not worth punishing everybody for the actions of a few (just because there are a few drunks on the roads does not mean the state should have a right to utilise violence blatantly in disregard for all other driver's rights on the road). We don't need government feeding out hungry or stealing money from the people whom thus become dependant on government hands out to feed and brainwash (ie educate) their children.
www.freekeene.com www.freestateproject.org www.freetalklive.com
Speaking as a (current but living outside the state) resident of New Hampshire myself, you do realize we get what we pay for, yes? We have no advanced social services, our schools are pathetic compared to any other New England state, we have severe and frequently recurring issues with the funding of our healthcare and systems, our roads are so horribly maintained that they're unsafe to drive on in some places, and we have a pretty stifled economy that looks better than it is because of people commuting across the border to Mass every day. New Hampshire is an extremely interesting state, and I like it, but to pretend its paradise and that government provides no benefits is incredibly misleading.
Secondly, I actually want to challenge you on your philosophy. You want an intentionally libertarian state, but how exactly do you intend to fix our issues? How do you think the free state project is going to provide care for the elderly and sick? What about education, who is going to fund that? The problem you have with these is that you say they should be privately funded. How about a family that isn't rich, but solidly upper-middle class? If they had children, they could afford to lavish them with the very best education, the parents could ensure they get the best healthcare, and the family as a whole simply gets significantly better benefits from life. These people get better jobs, which leads to more money, and so on and so on. Do you think have a rich elite at the very top of the poor is a good idea? Furthermore, what about the rich who fund this? If I pay for your library, I should get to dictate what goes into it, correct? What's to stop me from stocking the whole thing with books that heavily favor my opinion of history and such? It would be a library, sure, but it wouldn't be very useful at all, and it's very unlikely there'd be any competition because you'd be too poor to run one either. Lastly, what about people who do need collective help? What about the disabled or the unemployed? Under your philosophy, there only approach to help is to either beg for help on their knees, or die when they can't feed themselves. Is that really what you stand for?
Lastly, I'd also like to mention your movement. The Free Keene people as a group are not very nice, and in parti
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."