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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Period.
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
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/...
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.
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.
By that measure, he can't pardon the turkey in a couple of days either.
He could have a kangaroo court find it guilty of being delicious, and then he has the legal process to overturn.