Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Says He Can't Pardon Snowden (arstechnica.com)
Joe Mullin, writing for Ars Technica:A campaign to pardon NSA leaker Edward Snowden, launched in combination with a fawning Oliver Stone film about him, hasn't made any headway. The request spurred the entire membership of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, 13 Republicans and nine Democrats, to send a letter to President Barack Obama urging against a pardon. "He is a criminal," they stated flatly. Obama weighed in on the matter on Friday. During his European tour, he was interviewed by Der Spiegel -- the largest newspaper in Germany, a country where Snowden is particularly popular. After discussing a wide range of issues, he was asked: Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden? Obama replied: "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point." He continued: I think that Mr. Snowden raised some legitimate concerns. How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community. If everybody took the approach that I make my own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system. At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself before the legal authorities and make his arguments or have his lawyers make his arguments, then I think those issues come into play. Until that time, what I've tried to suggest -- both to the American people, but also to the world -- is that we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security.
President Ford pardoned Nixon for the watergate scandal, and Nixon never stepped inside a court for his misdeeds.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
I am thinking in this case Obama is getting a twofer : that is to say, he not only gets to not pardon Snowden (who has embarrassed Obama) but also gets to signal to Hillary that she is not getting.a pardon either without explicitly saying so, without making it look like there is strife within the Democratic Party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The President can pardon whomever he wishes. Most recently, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before charges were even brought. There's plenty of writing on the subject and it's a rather cut-and-dry issue.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community.
Because that worked out so well for William Binney and Thomas Drake: in an unannounced, armed, early morning raid, a dozen agents armed with rifles appeared at his house, one of whom entered the bathroom and pointed his gun at Binney, who was taking a shower. The FBI confiscated a desktop computer, disks, and personal and business records.[14] The NSA revoked his security clearance, forcing him to close a business he ran with former colleagues at a loss of a reported $300,000 in annual income. The FBI raided the homes of Wiebe and Loomis, as well as House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark, the same morning. Several months later the Bureau raided the home of then still active NSA executive Thomas Andrews Drake who had also contacted DoD IG, but anonymously with confidentiality assured.
Point is: when even at the very top levels of government the Constitution is completely ignored, there can be no rule of law, so laws in this situation are not relevant. If you want your underlings to follow "procedures and practices", best you lead by example, and not ignore both the spirit and the letter of the foundational document of the nation.
Also, as TFA notes, it is absolutely untrue that he cannot pardon Mr Snowden if he so wishes.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/227...
the president has full power to pardon anyone of all crimes, either before, during or after persecution and that the pardon clears the individuals of any consequences that may have arisen from the action from which they were to be punished.
1. Snowden did attempt to go through proper channels. The big ignore..
2. He had no whistleblower protections in place.
3. If he had surrendered, he would have been subjected to torture and punishment without trial. FISA court..
4. This is like the only thing that congress has agreed with Obama on in both terms.. That in itself should be a red flag..
5. With guarantees for fairness, he would have faced a court. Couldn't get those guarantees.
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
in an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus (IIRC the context was a little old lady asking if he could help her cross the street): "Can, but won't."
Of course, being a politician he can't get two sentences out of his mouth without least one lie.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Lest you downmod for political reasons. Obama could pardon anyone for anything - the power is unfettered.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
all you need is an indictment and you get pardoned for that.
In Ex parte Garland they held that:
The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.
(The mentioned limitation was in cased of impeachment). So no you don't even need an indictment to receive a pardon. I personally like Obama but damn he must be the absolute worst constitutional lawyer ever.
Putin, as part of his promise to Donald Trump that he will not interfere in the internal affairs of the United States, will deport Snowden to the US within a year of Trump taking office.
Finding God in a Dog
Duh! Non-criminals need no pardon you morons.
but Rod Blagojevich can get one and HE may have something on obama
He'll see prosecuting an old lady for a crime a lot of people (willfully or otherwise) do not understand to be not helpful and just let her off. I know people have a lot of angst about the Clintons and their grifter ways, but they're washed up in politics and it's really not worth it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Obama replied: "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, except, of course, when I give Hillary her blanket pardon, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point."
What else is new.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If everybody took the approach that [they make their] own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system.
The "if I let everyone do xyz then it wouldn't work, and I'm therefor never allowing ANY xyz" argument is a classic strawman.
If everybody in the world became mayor of a town then we'd starve to death because nobody would be producing food... YET we selectively allow people to become mayor all the time.
Snowden did not make arbitrary decisions about something mundane to make a buck... he made a very careful, thoughtful decision, expressly for the public good and NOT for any kind of personal profit (in fact it has cost him dearly, even if he were to get pardoned today, which apparently he won't). Shame on Obama for sound-biting it as though pardoning Snowden would lead to a public clamor for all people who make any decision about anything.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
As everyone and their brother begs him to pardon Hillary / Bill Clinton before he leaves office.
"I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point."
We shall see if he sticks to his guns or if certain folks get special treatment.
My bet is on the latter.
DarkOx
Maybe I'm just another victim of the American "educational" system, but I don't understand your tag line. What does the 17th amendment or repealing it have to do with the "right to read" link that you provided?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Period.
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
Obama didn't say it's illegal to pardon Snowden, he said he can't. He may well have meant that as in when you ask someone to marry you on the first date and she says "I can't."
Goddamn coward. This is a prime example of the anemia of the left right here. Obama used to stand against the abuses of the Patriot Act and mass surveillance and then you sold out completely--and some of that is due to the dirty realities in the world, yes I get that maybe closing Guantanamo wasn't going to be as simple as all that, but here he is in the closing weeks of your presidency and he can't even make a token effort to support the ideals he once claimed to hold. The perjurer Clapper walked free and will even keep his job right through the very end.
And why are you doing it, Mr. President? Because your entire plan is to play meek and non-controversial, try to not rock the boat and give the Republicans more and more rope from which to hang themselves. That's been your strategy the whole time, and it's backfired almost every step of the way. Admittedly, you have slightly better chances hoping a Trump presidency with Republicans controlling senate and house, but... goddamn it man. If you wanted to have a nuanced view on the matter, you could have at least had Clapper arrested. Or fired.
Then how about he commutes the sentence of Chelsea Manning - someone who went before a military court instead of running, who's already served more time than any other whistleblower in our nation's history?
http://www.politico.com/story/...
against Richard Nixon. He was thereby charged with some form of "high crimes and misdemeanors". He resigned before a Senate trial could take place, but criminal charges could have grown out of the impeachment.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"Liberal?"
Jesus fuck, you Trump fanatics seriously need to dial it down a notch.
I was asking a fair question. Despite all the mud thrown during the campaign there's little to no grounds to actually prosecute Clinton; even the FBI acknowledged as much. Twice.
If you really think Obama will grant Clinton a preemptive pardon two months before leaving office you all live in a fantasy world.
If you believe the Justice department had a free hand to indict Hillary, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The fix was in, the investigation hasn't really even started yet. Don't think they won't investigate the whitewash too.
Intent requirement? LOL
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Man, you really bought into this campaign did you.
America is doing its usual pendulum shift from one pole to another. Trump will be interesting.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Your mind was made up before this investigation started.
Your candidate lost. Now she won't be able to clear herself.
She needs a pardon or her shit will be slowly exposed over the next 4 years, costing the Ds the next election too.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
... an intelligent and thoughtfully presented argument explaining someone's actions as PotUS (regardless of whether I agree with those actions), as opposed to vitriolic sound-bite obsessed melange that we were subjected to during this election cycle and that I fear will become the new norm.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Mark my words. The "i'll prosecute her" motto will end up the same place the wall and the Obamacare repeal will.
I swear, is like you guys just heard a politician for the very first time.
Yeah it would go more like this:
"Cool set of classified files, Snowden. Want to take it to the White House?"
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Legal experts agree that the President can pardon someone even if there has been no charge; they need only specify in broad terms.
For example:
The reasons that Obama won't pardon Snowden are two: First, he doesn't want to. Second, it would beg the question of pardoning Hillary Clinton.
You just don't get it, do you?
It's not OK to unilaterally decide to release top-secret information to the public. End of story.
Unless you run your own email server. Then it's OK.
A pardon would mean no more continued investigations into national security breaches. Even if she is innocent, they could still investigate and try her going forward.
If for example, it could be proven in court that Hillary used the Foundation in a money laundering scheme to cover alleged pay-for-play corruption while SoS, then those asset would be liable for forfeiture even if Hillary was pardoned for the actual crimes.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD
Yeah, I'm not blaming Snowden. But that's the reason that Obama cited for not being able to pardon him, and it doesn't apply to Pvt Manning.
Perhaps this is just diplomacy in action.
It's clear that Obama is not fond of Edward Snowden and would never pardon him. But admitting that to a bunch of German Snowden fans is probably not wise. So he just tells them a little lie that seems legit enough for people not used to the American legal system, adding some hints that the case is not black and white.
Obama does not care about Snowen. By this time, Obama has probably bought the *IA's line that Snowden is the anti-christ, that should be shot on sight. Under normal circumstances, he would just say that he will not pardon Snowden because Snowden is bad.
Also, Obama has competent legal help, as well as being a lawyer himself. He knows he can pardon Snowden if he wants to. But the situation visa-vie Snowden allows Obama to state a principle that disallows a pardon for Hilary, without referring to Hilary or even admitting that he knows it might apply to Hilary.
This is a very elegant way to throw Hilary under the bus, without even mentioning she might exist. He can say to Hilary supporters when the question inevitably comes up "I must apply my principles without fear of favor."
Whatever you think about Obama you have to admit that he is a very smart fellow.
When you say "I can't pardon someone..." that doesn't necessarily mean you are prohibited by law. It can also mean you have a moral or practical objection that prevents you from pardoning the person.
Just because Slashdot is heavily Snowden-sympathetic doesn't mean we should be deliberately misunderstanding the position of people opposed to pardoning him. You cannot have national security if individual people outside the chain of command decide to buck the classification system. We need better whistleblowing systems and better oversight, but you can't have every college grad deciding he knows better than everyone else. Because while sometimes he does, other times he gets lots of people killed over something stupid.
Exactly. Obama knows full well the difference between what he can legally do, and what he can justify (to himself and to the nation) doing.
Snowden broke the law. There is no avoiding that fact. He may have done it for moral reasons, but he still broke the law and didn't even attempt to go down any of several legitimate roads of objection available within our national security framework for so-called 'whistle-blowing.'
If Obama were to outright pardon him for his crimes, he would be implicitly condoning those actions and inviting chaos.
Now, if Snowden were to turn himself in, and be formally convicted and sentenced in court it would be a different matter. At that point the President could use the power of pardon to commute his sentence on moral grounds without actually condoning or encouraging the original crime.
The only way the NSA would have anything on anybody is if they ever sent an email, an SMS text or made a phone call or something like that. I don't worry about it, I'm to boring to be worthy of their interest.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Several posters have been caught up on Obama saying he "can't" pardon Snowden, but they're misinterpreting his meaning. He's meaning "won't", like in 2001:A Space Odyssey when HAL said "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" really meant HAL was just refusing to open the pod doors.
You might disagree with this decision (I know I do), but don't pretend Obama's confusing legal authority with a weighty presidential decision.
I am not a sig.
We see it all the time in police shows "i won't testify until I get immunity blah blah blah"
Any requirement that someone performing this duty would report to anyone in their chain of command or who answers to anyone in their chain of command outside of public scrutiny is preposterous. These are the very people they are informing on. Even another body or official simply creates another corruptable/blackmailable organization.
Rule of the people, by the people, and for the people is the core principle of our nation. That can't exist if the government does not have to account and disclose, while relevant and preventable not decades after the fact, to the people. The biggest potential threat to national security is and always will innately be its government.
We should not recognize any portion of government as having the authority to withhold evidence of illegal and especially unconstitutional action. Any artifice, construct of paper, practice, or reasoning, which has this result should be held as void without exception. Since serving the people and obeying the Constitution is the first and foremost Constitutional duty of anyone in government, working for government, directly or indirectly they have absolute legal immunity when performing that duty. This includes Snowden. The NSA was his boss, The President was their boss, The People are the Presidents boss. Uncensored mass public disclosure is how you inform The People and they are not outside but at the top of the chain of the command.
To suggest that rule by the people does not outweigh even potential lost lives is to deny the ocean of blood that has been spilled in an effort to protect it. I brand anyone who is not willing to accept a certain amount of personal risk, no matter what the alleged boogeyman of the day, for the liberty, freedom, and voice in our own rule we so cherish not only for ourselves but those who come after, to be a coward or the traitor depending on cowards selling our nation so cheaply. That isn't "national security" it is the path of national ruin.
Article-reading abstinence isn't the answer! This is a perfect case in point, where practicing abstinence with regard to reading the article, simply adds noise to the discussion, and makes it so that many of the people who did read the article, now think you are totally retarded fuckwit since apparently you can't remember anything for even a few seconds.
To me, this obviously isn't true. I personally think you only said such a mind-boggling stupidly-retarded numbskulled thing, simply because of your agenda of cultivating your ignorance, not because of a memory failure. You didn't forget what the article said; you never read it in the first place! But nooo, not everyone is going to believe that, so now we're going to have to have a digression into why you blather empty-headed idiocy like a brain-damaged imbecil whose mother drank too much when she was pregnant.
And one of the arguments the Indy1-is-a-retarded-fuckwit camp is going to say, is that even if you shot your mouth off due to not reading the article, practicing abstinence when it comes to reading, is itself something that only a retarded fuckwit would do. So they're going to say you're a retarded fuckwit regardless of whether the failure is in your memory, vs your desire to remain stupid. Now your defenders (people such I myself) are put on the spot, having to explain that maybe there is some kind of non-stupid merit to stupidity.
And I don't have any fucking idea how to argue that. Do you? (Think of what your dull-witted shit-for-brains comment has just done to your friends here.)
Don't you see how "why does Indy1 say such insipid, half-baked nonsense?" is just going to turn into the stupidest flamewar ever, on par with the level of stupidity of your own speech?
You can prevent this. It turns out that it is easy to avoid saying amazingly stupid things like mentioning the Ford/Nixon thing that the article addresses: just READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE first.
I wonder if maybe there is a way to put on some kind of mental condom, if you have to. Could you maybe have knowledge of the article on hand when you comment on the article, but then forget it later? If you can do that, it might offer most of the advantages of reading-abstinence, while also preventing shockingly-moronic statements which leave us all guessing as to why you say say such stupid things.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I think if everybody took the approach of Mr. Snowden, everything would be fine. He was very deliberate and circumspect about what was released and how. Not dangerously irresponsible like Manning and wikileaks. Snowden is the kind of whistle-blower that should be respected. The problem is that the government wants to pretend that the things he revealed were actually legal when they were not, and Obama is unfortunately willing to go along with it. If anyone thinks a Trump administration is going to be better, I believe that they are about to be even more surprised than Obama supporters were.
Anyone who says such things is a traitor to America, plain and simple.
When they say such things, what they are really saying is that they believe the people should be willing to give up (some of, or all of) their Fourth Amendment right to privacy for the sake of increased security against a risk that has always been, and will likely always be, with us from now until the end of time. It's a blatant power grab, pure and simple.
They're trying to "balance" the privacy and security scales by removing weight from the privacy side and adding weight to the security side, so that the scale is thus "balanced". That's what they mean by "balancing": taking away our rights. Our liberties. For the sake of safety.
Well excuse the crap out of me but the Constitution of the United States of America DOES NOT NEED BALANCING! They're just fine where they're at on the scale thankyouverymuch.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin/:
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
They should give it to Bob Dylan.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
So, if you can't dispute the facts, you insult the source?
Mr. Trump would be so proud of that approach.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Sure, pardon Snowden, I'm all for it, but also I join Birgitta Jonsdottir when I say, Obama can still do one thing right, he can pardon Chelsea Manning! Please!
No. In that case, the correct word is "won't". "Can't" requires an inability. Obama is legally able, and is not physically disabled in some fashion and unable to duly sign said pardon, or even unable because he's no longer president.
"Can't" can't be used this way correctly.
Why hasn't there been a petition to pardon Chelsea (Bradley) Manning? Manning blew the whistle, knowing full well the consequences. Manning didn't run away, faced the court system, and is now serving prison time. Of the two, I think Manning is more deserving of a presidential pardon.
Fortunately, we have the case of a previous wistleblower -- then-Pfc (?) Bradley Manning, now Chelsea -- who exposed much worse crimes than Snowden did, who was tried and convicted, and is presently being abused vigorously in US custody. If President Obama is citing a lack of going to trial as his reason for not issuing a pardon, then we have a much more egregious miscarriage of justice much more deserving of such a pardon, for which that reason is not an issue.
The fact that Chelsea Manning has not been pardoned, and is in fact being openly and publicly subjected to abusive treatment to make an example of her, says all you need to know about this administration's stance on pardoning wistleblowers who do their country a great service.
A pardon is just the start. National Hero Snowden deserves the Medal of Freedom and a seat in Congress.
Obama didn't say it's illegal to pardon Snowden, he said he can't. He may well have meant that as in when you ask someone to marry you on the first date and she says "I can't."
Saying something to a crowd that are of one opinion, that is going to make them angry, when they outnumber your security, is not good tactics!
Try standing in front of a crowd and saying something like that, likely your own instincts will not let you say it!
I didn't vote for Obama, but jeeze, cut the guy some slack! 8-)
My mind was made up after the investigations. Comey didn't want her elected, or he wouldn't have made his last-minute announcement. He wants Clinton taken down. He simply didn't find the evidence, because it doesn't actually exist.
You seem to have your mind made up, and well shielded from the actual facts.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's a difference between Snowden and Clinton. It's very clear that Snowden violated the law big-time, while there's no good evidence that Clinton did anything that warrants criminal prosecution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
He's a traitor. He is a traitor to the United States of America. He should be tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. So as far as this traitor is concerned he can stay in Russia and rot.
Patriotism is a favorite device of people with something to sell; A true patriot honors all nations;
Casteism