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.

54 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Not going to happen by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Not going to happen by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only opinion that matters is Obama's. He's the one who can grant a pardon, and the Constitution makes it stick. Doesn't matter what the rest of the government thinks. THAT is how it works. Unfortunately, Obama probably won't - his "legacy" would be at risk.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Not going to happen by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the fact that Obama was perfectly willing to publicly state that he wasn't going to start grounding airplanes to catch Snowden and then did just that (setting a dangerous diplomatic precedent that has already been repeated) - I highly doubt Obama is going to be pardoning Snowden.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Not going to happen by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "his "legacy" would be at risk."

      Hell, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, so he's already gotten his "ADVANCE TO GO (COLLECT $200)" card.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    5. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...making campaign pitches for her - ON YOUR DIME. He's not getting paid to do that. The time he spends doing that is supposed to be spent actually running the country, not setting up his party. I hope to hell the democrats plan to include those several million dollars an hour free advertising, international media coverage and presidential security detail in the statement where they declare campaign contributions.

      Have you ever heard of congress? Have any gripes with them? El Pres doesn't make much more than those worthless fuckers. And there are hundreds of them. They spend a few days a year being obstructionists, and the rest of the time pimping themselves out.

    6. Re:Not going to happen by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    7. Re:Not going to happen by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I'd like to see Snowden pardoned, I think he's probably wrong about why pardons exist. It seems to me that they originally existed as a means of nobility keeping political allies in power instead of dead or in jail. Who else would a king bother to pardon? Granted, the first high profile federal pardons in the US were for the whisky rebellion, so perhaps in the US context he might be right, but the US took the concept of pardons from the country that it rebelled from.

    8. Re:Not going to happen by See+Attached · · Score: 2

      You cant say he is a lesser man for doing things, then saying he does what others tell him to. Transitive property means the people around him are jerks. Based on our trajectory in Dev 2008, we are in a better place now, wouldnt you say?

      --
      Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    9. Re:Not going to happen by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With Trump being the "alernative' the choice is easy.

      When you learn to spell, you can vote...

      Trump might be good or bad, but Clinton is evil...

    10. Re:Not going to happen by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hell, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing

      That's a commonly done thing by that bunch.
      Arafat and Begin got theirs not for what they had done but in the hope that they would sort out a lasting peace and deserve it.

    11. Re:Not going to happen by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he's better off not pardoned (yet). right now, if he returns pardoned, some yank nutcase with " 'mah rifle, 'mah deeemocracy and 'mah obligiateon to do what's riiight" will put a bullet in his head and feel he's doing everybody a service.

    12. Re:Not going to happen by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We're in a better place.... based on what?
      - We've more than doubled the national debt.
      - We're mired in shit in the middle east in more countries, not less.
      - We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline. Worst most in the black communities who continue to be told that the world is stacked against them and there is no way they can succeed, and they believe that horse shit.
      - We've angered several key allies globally including Britain, Japan and Israel. Hell, the President of the Philippines just said he wants Americans out.
      - Civil Rights has taken a pretty ugly turn and there are those among us more suspicious of the other race than they have been in a long time (the other race, being whatever they arent), thanks to the press stirring up the one-sided claims of bigotry and ignoring the other, while the President comes out and says inflammatory and irresponsible shit like, "Well, I don't have all the facts, but the cops acted stupidly.". (Paraphrased)
      - Health care costs have skyrocketed along with insurance premiums helped along in large part by the Affordable Care Act.
      - Most respectable economists will tell you flat out that the markets are artificially inflated and another crash isnt a possibility, but rather an eventuality that will make the 2008 "recession" look like a picnic, and we can thank the bailouts for a significant portion of that.
      - College tuition is insane for education that 20 years ago was considered the minimum standard necessary to graduate from high school, where high school now is churning out record numbers of illiterate entitled jackasses.
      - Food prices are continuing to rise, in part due to the on-going campaigns of the EPA and FDA to regulate every aspect of every thing you might maybe someday kinda put in your body, while ensuring that you have to deal with government bureaucracy just to get the water to farm or raise livestock.
      - Almost every "journalist" is fully and apologetically in the tank for one political party or the other, and have stopped telling the people the truth about much of anything.
      - Our energy sector is fully under attack with costs to the consumers continuing to rise while the rickety state of the infrastructure to supply whatever renewable energy of the day you choose continues to degrade to the point of collapse.

      I could put another 10 items on this list without research. So again I'll ask, how are we better?
      We're not wealthier, unless you are among an elite subset.
      We're not better educated.
      Our costs are not decreasing for almost anything.
      We're not living with our neighbors with more peace, joy or understanding unless you're in a key special interest group. (Which I will admit we've made gains in.)
      We (collectively) are not enjoying lower unemployment.
      We're in more on-going military conflicts than we were, and we've lost more soldiers that in the previous decade in the process.
      The opinion globally of both Americans and their leaders is much lower around the world than it was.

      And Bush started us on half of this stupidity, so he gets no pass from me either.

      I'd say we're neck deep in shit stew personally. But thank you for the direct evidence provided that the "journalists" have accomplished their goal.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    13. Re:Not going to happen by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think Obama publicly speaks out against Trump because he has actual respect for the office and Trump is an unprecedented, very unusual candidate. No matter if you're Democrat or Republican, if you are able to see through the populist rhetoric and regard Trump for what he is, one thing seems certain; Trump is completely unpredictable to the point of being erratic and volatile. An accomplished opportunist that always says whatever the current audience wants to hear. It's impossible to know what he will do in a position of power and that can be a very dangerous thing when holding one of the most powerful positions in the world.

    14. Re:Not going to happen by stinerman · · Score: 2

      If you think Trump might be good, I don't know what to tell you. The best case scenario in a Trump presidency is that he basically blows it all up and we have to start over. The worst case scenario is that his buddy Putin spurns him and he decides to launch nukes in retaliation. This is the first election where I'm actually fearful for the country if a major party candidate would win the election.

      I had some unflattering things to say about George Bush, but Trump is orders of magnitude more dangerous than he ever was. The guy is a pure loose cannon.

    15. Re:Not going to happen by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He spoke out to fight government oversight and abuse of government power. He could barely be in a worse country for government abuse of power and invasion of privacy. Besides, Russia is a bit of a craphole of a place to live, regardless of obesity.

      The average lifespan of a man in Russia is 65. Yes, 65. No freedom of press. A government constantly at odds with the rest of the world. No true democracy.

      I wouldn't want to be exiled in Russia- there are probably over 100 countries I would choose to live in before Russia.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Not going to happen by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *The US never had a monarchy*

      You can thank George Washington for that. A lot of people wanted to crown him king- there was pressure to make him one but he turned it down.. He could have gotten away with it if he were a lesser man. America was lucky they had Washington in charge of the army at that point instead of someone else.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:Not going to happen by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I were Snowden, I'd wait until Obama visited Russia and then ask Putin if I could sit in on the talks. When I met Obama I'd speak really quietly.

      Obama: Excuse me
      Snowden: mmdsmadm msdm admasdm
      Obama: Pardon?
      Snowden: AHA! Thank you Obammy!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    18. Re:Not going to happen by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      There ae PLENTY of places where he'd be worse off. Somalia. Libya. Sierra Leone. Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Lesotho, ... there are more than 50 countries with a lower life expectancy for men than Russia. And then you've got places like Venezuela, which is fast becoming another failed state, with food riots.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    19. Re:Not going to happen by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      100 countries better than Russia? Russia definitely has a lot of problems like you mentioned, but I'd have a hard time listing 100 countries that would be better to live in. Western Europe doesn't have *that* many countries in it. I sincerely hope you're exaggerating here.

      Personally, if I had to be exiled from the US, I'd want it to be in Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Heck, even Iceland wouldn't be bad: it's a small, remote island with only about 250k people, perfect for exile!

      But there's a lot of much-worse places than Russia to live. Somalia comes to mind, along with just about any place in the middle east, many parts of Africa (and of course northern Africa), Central America (in Honduras a man has a 1 in 9 chance of being murdered), etc.

    20. Re:Not going to happen by s122604 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Hey, at least we aren't Somalia" -- that's hardly a ringing endorsement,...

  2. I think... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He is a hero. Like Elon Musk he continues to shape society both today and for the future.

    1. Re: I think... by DMJC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re: I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re: I think... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re: I think... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      The problem with bad guys is they never see themselves as the bad guy.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re: I think... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He is a hero.

      He is a criminal

      Those are not mutually exclusive. Why can't he be both?

    6. Re: I think... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah. Its not like treason or anything is against the law.

    7. Re: I think... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    8. Re: I think... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Its not like treason or anything is against the law.

      The American Revolution was illegal as well, consider that...

    9. Re: I think... by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there's very little (unclassified) evidence that he actually tried to pursue any legal alternatives

      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.

  3. Misguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fact that he makes a case for a pardon shows that he still believes in government. Isn't that contrary to everything he's tried to teach us so far?

  4. The Obama Whitehouse has already spoken by darthsilun · · Score: 2

    There was a We The People (Whitehouse.gov) petition back in 2013 to pardon Snowden.

    It took the Whitehouse two years to respond; they said no. It seems really unlikely – to me – that Obama will change his mind at this point.

    Snowden is lucky that Putin was around and so "accommodating."

    The Whitehouse site won't show the petition for some reason, for me anyway; there are several summaries around, e.g. http://time.com/3974713/white-...

  5. In a moral world, yes, Snowden would be home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. No chance. by matbury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  7. Snowden reads /. by whipslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sometimes, it seems https://twitter.com/Snowden/st...

  8. Re:Convicted by HBI · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  9. Re:IANAL by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Typical legalese that means nothing at all. But lawyers will argue both sides forever - or at least until the billable hours run out.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Re:Convicted by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    No one has told you that accusation = guilt nowadays huh? How do you think they can justify drone strikes, regime change, etc. They were bad people, so we killed them. Welcome to the brave new world.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. He is asking those he has harmed to pardon him by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  13. The Constitution is supreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Constitution is the most supreme legal document in all the land. It overrides all laws. Snowden showed the Constitution was being knowingly and repeatedly violated. Laws which punish people for revealing systemic violations of the constitution are themselves an affront to that supreme document.

    The bureaucrats know this. Obama knows this. The governments lawyers know this. The reason they don't care is because the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the government and they are the government.

    Obama has been a major disappointment as President. He promised change but was a continuation of the George Bush presidency. Obamacare and the money corporations throw at retired presidents will be his only accomplishment. He can make some amends by pardoning Snowden. If there was ever a time to do that then this is it. If he doesn't he's showing the Constitution is a weak document which tyrants can ignore whenever it suits them.

  14. Re:The Free State Welcomes Edward Snowden by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."
  15. You know it's bad when you need Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Guy was following his moral obligation to the people of the US and the government wants to crucify him for it like we're back in Roman times. Sometimes the government forgets they are supposed to protect the people. It's guys like him that stand up, put their life on the line, and do the right thing. USA could look like the good guy again if they pardon him. How fucked up is it that a Communist regime gets to play the part of the good guy by ensuring his safety? Goes to show how bad this country has gotten, how authoritarian we've become in the past 40 years. We need to do a 180 on this 180. When your life is on the line the enemy of my enemy is my friend, where else was he supposed to go? Give the patriot a pardon and let him come home, let him live, let him pursue happiness.

  16. Who has more power? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Funny

    The contractors and brands that give to state and federal politicians? That ensure top paying local security, think tank, educational, mil and gov jobs stay in fly over states.
    Or the whistleblowing that exposed torture, collect it all domestic spying or rubber stamp foreign collection thats really a cover for funding total domestic collection for decades.
    https://cryptome.org/2013-info...
    Freedom of the press or party political donations? Think of the local contractor jobs, all the new 2 person teams now in work to support domestic collection.
    A statement to the world about this generations privacy or contractors giving more donations?
    Donations vs privacy and working encryption for the first time ever.
    Donations.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  17. Keep dreaming Ed. by Chas · · Score: 2

    As much as I think you did this country (well the citizens at least, fuck the government), you have almost no chance of "The Great Unifier Obamachrist" pardoning you.

    He's too deeply in bed with intelligence agencies and benefits from keeping the people ignorant and divided.

    Anything that shakes that status quo will be conveniently ignored.

    Sorry man.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  18. The Ends Justify the Beans by mbeckman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Part of the entire problem by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Snowden was an analyst (entry level at that), which I would imagine is a profession that doesn't pay as well in the civilian world.

    Snowden WAS in the civilian world working for an expensive external contractor to the NSA. That outsourcing is part of the entire problem (apart from the NSA toy soldiers who are most definitely civilian themselves in what should be a military job with rules of engagement etc) and if Snowden wasn't paid incredibly well we can at least be sure that his boss was.

  20. Who know if it will happen: Absolutely nobody by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  21. Re:He aint going home, no way by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does he want to go back that much? I've been to the USA, its not that great.

    Probably because it's home. There's plenty of great parts of the US perhaps you didn't visit any of them.

    Maybe he just loves america so much?

    One can only suspect so. He's pretty much destroyed his life for love of his country.

    He is a true patriot for the USA (and there aren't many),

    I'd agree.

    There are worse things than not going home again.

    There are, but historically exile has often been one step below execution when it comes to punishment.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  22. A National Hero by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    In a free society, the people need access to all government activities. If our military status can be threatened by an enemy learning secrets then our military is inferior. Hand the enemy our blueprints and procedures and find out how many years it would take them to actually be able to produce a military product. By the time they can actually do it we should already have a new, superior technology in place. High technology weapons and modes of combat are beyond the ability of other nations to afford or to manufacture.

  23. there's always greed and the clintons by lucm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He can wait. If Clinton is elected, on her last day in office she'll probably do like her husband and sell pardons (Clinton pardoned more people on his last day than all other presidents combined). Not only would she be the first female president, she could also try to beat him at the corruption game. Now THAT would be a big win for gender equality.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  24. Don't see him ever getting a pardon by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree quite a bit with most of the people here on whether what he did was a good thing or not. But we can have different viewpoints on that here. However, the reason he won't get a pardon is that doing so would set a bad precedent that some other person in the future will disclose something maybe a lot more harmful to the US government and citizenry and then expect a pardon for that. The government is simply not going to pardon him because it would give the illusion that individuals can make the kind of decisions he made with no punishment.

    Despite the scare mongering that his stay in Russia expires next year, Putin will simply extend it for a few more years. What Snowden doesn't get is that eventually Putin will be out of power, perhaps through death. For all we know his replacement will send Snowden back to the US to stand trial, even if that's 20 years from now. I think sometimes the US is OK with people being permanently in exile as their punishment and they can't admit it but I think that in Snowden's case that's what's going on.

  25. Re:Yes. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Long gone are the days when politicians did anything because it was morally right. I doubt such days ever really existed.

    They absolutely did exist. George Washington could have been crowned king if he wanted, but he refused and insisted on having a republic form of government without any kind of monarch or dictator.