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