Two Years Later, White House Responds To 'Pardon Edward Snowden' Petition 608
An anonymous reader writes: In June of 2013, a petition was posted to Whitehouse.gov demanding that Edward Snowden receive a full pardon for his leaks about the NSA and U.S. surveillance practices. The petition swiftly passed 100,000 signatures — the point at which the White House said it would officially respond to such petitions. For two years, the administration was silent, but now they've finally responded. In short: No, Edward Snowden won't be receiving a pardon.
Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said, "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said, "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well Obama did promise to be the most open and transparent president ever.
Re: Off Topic Editorial Complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that the government agencies were traitors to the American people, and that Snowden selflessly exposed said treachery the only route that he knew how (since he saw his other whistleblower peers fired and discredited when they brought ethics concerns to the leadership).
Snowden only made obvious how America failed us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you for the heads up, I don't often view the firehose, so I missed that one. Maybe we should get a kickstarter going to buy Slashdot off of Dice as the members and make it independent again.
Re:Off Topic Editorial Complaint (Score:5, Funny)
It's off the market now. I bought it earlier today for 14,500 bottle caps and $100 in NCR money. Also had to throw in 12 bottles of Nuka-Cola and a box of Fancy Lad Snacks, but that was just because of some contractual obligation they had to Pudge.
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us kill you.
If the crime fits....
I have a feeling that he could plea bargain a deal that returned him to the states and preserved his life if for nothing else but to avoid the public trial.
Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too.. I don't think this administration cares one way or the other.
Public trial?
There will be no such thing. No jury of his peers.
The most you'd ever hear about it would be some very generalized, declassified summaries of the day's activity, carefully selected to eliminate any suspicion that he might not be guilty.
The verdict has already been decided.
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
Jury of his peers? Impossible.
Where are the feds going to find 12 whistle blower heroes?
Whistle blower (Score:5, Insightful)
What Snowden did was technically illegal, but he was exposing previous illegal acts by the government, so he should be pardoned on that basis. Snowden has not been charged (yet) under the espionage act because the possibility of the death penalty would block his extradition from most European countries where he might seek asylum.
"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." That's just ridiculous. He would never see a public courtroom but would be tried in a secret "patriot act " court. I think the authoritarian regime is right here.
This is not the America I grew up in. This is disgraceful.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record, what every single one of the Founding Fathers of the United States did was "technically illegal", too.
Boston Tea Party? technically illegal
Rosa Parks technically illegal
Susan B Anthony? technically illegal
Martin Luther King, Jr? technically illegal
So, Ms Lisa Monaco, go jump in the motherfucking sea. You suggest that the "right way" for Mr Snowden to react to finding that his government was doing illegal shit would be to "speak out about it. Well, madame spokesperson, how the fuck do you "speak out" about something that it's illegal to disclose?
Was Snowden supposed to go on the Sunday talk shows and say, "the government is doing really sleazy, illegal and unconstitutional shit, but I can't tell you what it is"? They'd have laughed at him.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a high probably no Sunday talk show would have let him speak once they found out what he was going to say. They are all owned by giant media conglomerates you know. They wouldnt risk the wrath of the Federal government. Pretty sure Snowden went to Greenwald because he was one of the few journalists with the balls to do the story. The Guardian was hammered by the UK government for running it.
Remember when the CEO of Qwest defied the NSA plan to tap all data and phones lines after 9/11. The Federal government pulled all their contracts from Qwest, hammered their stock and then put him in prison for a phony securities rap. Qwest was a rare corporate hero among telecoms, long since swallowed up by CenturyLink who are just as bad as all the rest.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Insightful)
When your oath to the government requires you to keep government wrongdoing secret, the problem is not with the whistleblower, but with the government.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Insightful)
He is not on the same level as Rosa Parks, Susan B Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr.
I don't think you grasp just how different Snowden is from Parks.
What, pray tell was the maximum penalty Rosa Parks faced for failing to comply with a Montgomery city ordinance? Legally? She wasn't in any real danger. A modest fine, or a couple nights in jail.
Her only real risk was that she could have been beaten (illegally) by police in an era and region where the people beating her would have gotten away with it.
King Jr? Arrested several times. No serious charges, and no serious penalties. Like Parks his greatest risk was illegal beatings and vigilantism. There's certainly no question what he did took courage. But the authority of the government itself wasn't really a threat to him. And the government wasn't going to threaten to shoot down a passenger plane he was on just to get their hands on him.
How about Susan B Anthony? She was arrested, and fined $100. (A lot more then than now, but still... small potatoes.)
You are right, Parks, Anthony and King Jr aren't on the same level as Snowden. He's in a level of trouble so much greater; those others never even scratched the surface.
No, Snowden is up there with Ben Franklin and the like. People who resisted their government at the very highest levels, people who would have hanged for their activities if they'd allowed themselves to get caught.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Informative)
You do remember that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, right? He was under surveillance by the FBI, the NSA, and police in order to undermine his civil rights movement -- as he was killed.
A 1999 civil court case decided that government agencies were liable for participation in the conspiracy to assassinate him.
Sure, that's not proof but the fact that the guy died standing up for what he believes in kind of says that the danger was as real as it is for Snowden...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Whistle blower (Score:4)
No, Snowden is up there with Ben Franklin and the like. People who resisted their government at the very highest levels, people who would have hanged for their activities if they'd allowed themselves to get caught.
The funny about the US is that is was founded on terrorism. It was owned by the King of England, and the terrorists rose up and defeated him.
How is Snowden any different? The US govt is now playing the role of the King of England, and he is playing the great American Hero. Where are his supporters who will happily fight and die along side him? Nah too hard, what are the Kardashians up to this week?
Re: (Score:3)
The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.
No, that's a false statement. If he had any realistic expectation of being treated like a citizen rather than a terrorist, and get a real "trial by his peers", he wouldn't have had to go to Russia. (Remember: he didn't go there first, the U.S. chased him there.)
Realistic thinking says he has almost no chance of a real trial. He would be treated as a terrorist. Government has said so more than once.
So no, he's not hiding from his actions. He's hiding from ridiculous OVERREaction on the part of governme
Re: (Score:3)
What you don't see is that the positive consequences of his actions far outweigh the negative consequences, I have yet to see any proof of any extreme negative consequences.
The government line is utterly disingenuous, Edward Snowden could have protested sure and he would have been fired and that would have been the end of it, the public would have been none the wiser to the massive gov't surveillance going on. If Edward Snowden had simply complained to the media they would have ignored him and the governmen
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Martin Luther King, Jr, Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony did NOT go to prison. They were arrested, booked and released. MLK spent some time in a local jail, but that's not the same as being sent to prison.
A better example for Snowden would be Daniel Ellsberg, who is now seen as a hero.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How did the previous poster not acknowledge what Ms. Monaco said? Does one have to believe that the other person wasn't being disingenuous to acknowledge what they said?
No, it's a moot issue, and obvious to everyone but you.,
Fair is when the rabbit that sits down to talk with a fox is holding a shotgun.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)
Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to pa
Re: (Score:3)
2016 is shaping up to be a disastrous election. For some reason, nobody on the D ticket wants to challenge Hillary, and the R ticket can't put forward a halfway decent candidate. I shudder to think of any candidate on the field right now, except maybe Sanders, in charge of the massive apparatus of the executive branch; especially the IC and the DoJ. I actually voted against Al Gore, back when I believed the R lie of low taxes and small government, but I would love to see him in the race right now, or any
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for taking a Snowden discussion off onto your tangent of "Hillary sucks!" Real helpful. Did you vote for George W, too?
I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.
So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.
Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Informative)
Oh a comedian, US corporations are pretty malevolent, from pharmaceuticals lying and killing people to generate extra profits, to oil companies taking cheap ass short cuts and killing people to the US military industrial complex actively promoting war for it's own sake and killing people. These psychopaths run the US government and that pretty much makes the US government as malevolent as it gets.
What the US government press really wanted to say in the press release "We were breaking laws all over the world in collusion with US corporations and mostly getting away with it, so fuck Snowden and as a warning to others who believe in honesty and justice, we will kill him and any other traitors to Psychopaths Incorporated 'er' the US Government". This is not about justice, this is about promoting the take over of the whole world by US corporations and enslavement of the worlds population. Of course psychopaths being psychopaths, it really is all about promoting global chaos because psychopaths thrive in chaos, it is quite simply who they are.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not the America I grew up in. This is disgraceful.
Actually it is the America you grew up in, you just didn't know it.
If one thing has changed over the decades it is visibility of detail of how the government operates. Decades ago they were still doing the same shit, possibly worse, but they had a lot more shadows to hide in.
Re:Whistle blower (Score:5, Insightful)
A relevant quote from a certain well-decorated US Marine Corps officer:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902â"1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Informative)
Let us kill you.
If the crime fits....
I have a feeling that he could plea bargain a deal that returned him to the states and preserved his life if for nothing else but to avoid the public trial.
Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too.. I don't think this administration cares one way or the other.
Public trial?
There will be no such thing.
Oh yes there would be a very public trial. Why do you need a closed trial when all the classified evidence has already been published by the accused and is in public domain? Just whip out the contract he signed when he was indoctrinated with his clearance and dig out the public records of the documents he claims to have released to the press. All you have to prove is HE released the classified information...
Why do people think he's not going to get an open trial? OR a fair one? The outcome may be obvious, but that doesn't make the trial unfair....
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Informative)
The evidence is classified, so the trial can't be public. Classified information doesn't suddenly become unclassified when it's made public. It doesn't matter if the whole world knows; these are government rules, they're not supposed to make sense.
No just laws = No fair trial (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people think he's not going to get an open trial? OR a fair one?
It doesn't matter whether he gets an open trial or not. The trial quite simply will not be fair. That is more or less a foregone conclusion. The laws he is charged under basically allow for no context to be considered even if what he did was morally correct and justified. He quite simply cannot get a fair trial.
The outcome may be obvious, but that doesn't make the trial unfair....
A ludicrous argument because it presumes the laws are just. Laws frequently are wildly unfair and you cannot have a fair trial when you are being judged under unfair laws.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a little bit of a dodge, though. If by "fair" we simply mean "consistent with local laws" then you're 100% guaranteed to get a fair trial in North Korea or under ISIS. It simply means that trials are fair by definition.
I think that there's
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't sure about him fleeing at first, but the amount of trash thrown at the wall to try and stick, only to be proved wrong by him later revealing further leaks proved what was going on, showed he did the right thing for the people to stay outside the reach of the US law. One day he'll get a medal, but it'll be awarded posthumously.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Death is one of the consequences of treason/espionage. What he did could easily have cost lives, so death would be on the table. I believe that the president has come out and said that death isn't on the table though.
Re: (Score:3)
So, we give the death penalty for what someone could have done? That doesn't sound much like liberty to me.
Hell, I could have run over an old lady on the way home today, but I didn't. Does that mean I should get the death penalty too?
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those charges carry the death penalty.
That's a civil matter and certainly does not carry the death penalty.
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:4, Insightful)
And we know this is true because the government whose crimes Snowden exposed says it's true.
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too
He's a man in his early 30s. Have you seen what Russian women look like in that age range, compared to American women? He's probably having a great time over there.
Re: (Score:3)
How many Americans never leave the country in their lifetime? Probably a large majority of them. So how's being stuck in Russia much different?
Re: (Score:3)
That just sounds like "regulation"; Europe is known for being more regulated than the US, and for a lot of things, that's a good thing. Just look at the privacy laws Europe has; they prevent a lot of the abuses going on in the US now. The downside to regulation, of course, is that it makes it very hard for new businesses to start up and grow quickly; there's a reason Silicon Valley is in the US instead of Europe. However, for large, established industries, Europe generally does them much better than the
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:4, Insightful)
> Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too..
Banished? Snowden wasn't banished. If he comes back to the States, the US government will kill him in the fastest, swiftest trial you'll ever see.
I lived in Russia for 5 years. While I'm not a huge fan of the government, the people are amazing and friendship is for life. It's a pretty good quality of life for those that don't know. I don't think Snowden is missing much from the states, except peanut better, ranch dressing and cream cheese (oh, and good chips).
He'll likely get a pardon when the american people are ready to oust those congressional folks that are pushing this high surveillance agenda, primarily those older folks like Mich McConnell that come from old power.
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5)
Only if you're a bootlicking fascist. A bootlicking fascist ignoring the billions of felonies committed by the USG with their warrantless spying. A bootlicking fascist ignoring the felonies from the USG and the Oath of Office that Snowden took, which required him to do exactly what he did.
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree heavily. Even the US isn't so dumb as to target a killing in Russia. They can get away with it in Pakistan who isn't going to fight back, but with Putin? There isn't a chance in hell. Putin has every reason to keep Snowden alive and happy in Russia if nothing else because it is a political black eye against the US. If he comes back to the US, he'll probably "commit suicide" in prison awaiting trial.
Alrighty then (Score:2)
Alrighty then, will John Corzine receive an indictment? I think we all know the answer.
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
He embarrassed us and we want to punish him so nobody else tries to do this in the future.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
And also, from TFA:
He IS dealing with the consequences. That's why he left.
What Lisa Monaco is pushing for is martyrdom.
We are supposed to be a country of laws. We should not have officials demanding martyrdom of those who oppose their policies.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the message here is that being right doesn't matter; being good and obedient preserves you, while being right only makes you a martyr. If you expose the corruption of those in power, that's well and good, and a great civil duty; however, you must understand that you will be punished.
The implication is that, civil duty or not, you should think long and hard about pitching your own skin into the cause, because we sure as hell aren't going to reward you just for doing a great service to humanity. Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.
Mod parent up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly.
If the end result of civil disobedience is the exact same in the USo
Re: (Score:3)
The politicians demanding martyrdom would be just as comfortable working for North Korea's government as they are working for the USofA's government.
And THAT is a very big problem.
<head nods> As the saying goes, when fascism comes to the USA, it'll march down main street wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible.
Re: (Score:3)
We haven't applied enough pressure on our government, and as such it is not responding favorably to our polite request.
That's because most of us aren't billionaires and/or have a Super PAC.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
he made no effort to be a whistleblower
False there are e-mails that have been more or less corroborate that indicate he DID raise the issue up the chain of command. He was basically told not to worry his pretty little head about it and get back to work.
Selling IC secrets to the highest bidder is hardly whistleblowing
Are you aware of any evidence he every sold any secrets? I am not.
Double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is running away from the consequences of their actions
When people like Keith Alexander and James R Clapper can get away with lying before congress, before the courts, there is a problem.
No surprises there... (Score:5, Interesting)
"We don't do pardons", followed by an appeal to patriotism (ie. if you don't agree with our decisions then you're a pinko commie)
Film at 11.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No surprises there... (Score:5, Insightful)
One important difference between Obama and Sanders is that Obama had pretty much zero track record before he took office. He was a state senator for a brief time, and then a US senator for a very brief time, and that's it. He was really an unknown; why people elected him is a mystery, probably just because they thought he was an "outsider". Sanders, OTOH, has a very, very long track record in politics, so you can just refer to that. If he ends up behaving completely different after being elected, then you really have to wonder if the Presidency isn't being completely controlled by someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe if power corrupts...
No, that's silly.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes - voting for the person who is lying about how liberal he is (I disagree that he is not liberal) over the person who is claiming to be conservative makes a lot of sense.
And for Pete's sake, these people fell for it twice.
Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
My e-mail response this morning from info@mail.whitehouse.gov regarding the Snowden pardon petition: "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address."
You mean in addition to the unlawful ones?
Re:Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.go (Score:5, Funny)
its not unlawful if the president does it.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why was Nixon kicked out?
Re:Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.go (Score:5, Informative)
He wasn't kicked out. He resigned before he could be impeached. He was then pardoned shortly afterwards.
Re:Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.go (Score:5, Funny)
There is a reason we don't call them kings.
Yes. They *have* got shit all over them.
Re:Got e-mail this morning from mail.whitehouse.go (Score:4, Informative)
This is the part that really rubbed me the wrong way:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require."
Here are some of the things Obama said prior to becoming president. This was in 2006:
We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans. ... As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. ... These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.
He said this during his campaign:
strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy
He said this while campaigning in 2007:
I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient
After he critiqued:
the Bush administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens
He promised to:
update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law
He also said he would review the Patriot Act to make sure that necessary protections for constitutional rights were in place.
So, what did he do when he got elected? He renewed the Patriot Act, and didn't do shit about any constitutional overstep until just recently when Rand Paul blocked another renewal of the Patriot Act, and now the White House has the balls to trot out that woman saying what I quoted above, how the president is working sooooo hard on reforms to protect our rights. Yeah, right. This petition hit its mark 2 years ago, why the response now? Because of the actions by Paul and others (most definitely with a massive assist from Snowden) to actually get some sort of dialog going on reforms, and now the White House is trying to take credit for everything. They waited this long to respond to the petition because they had shit to say about it until someone who is not even in the president's party finally gets the ball rolling and they can start taking credit for reforms. It's hollow bullshit. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain. This petition response is hollow, it's as hollow as the campaign promises which got me to naively vote for Obama for his first term, and his complete and utter failure to meet any of them is why I didn't vote for him in his second term, so they don't get to claim any sort of high ground on this issue. They did not want these reforms, they were dragged there kicking and screaming the entire way ever since Snowden boarded his
Re: (Score:3)
It may eventually be deemed to be unconstitutional, but it is allowed by law. Here is the relivant law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]...
You may not agree with it, but as judges have ruled on it, it is a matter of law.
So was slavery, once... does that make it "right" at the time?
Would you hang all those who helped slaves escape?
If it is wrong, then it is wrong, and no law makes it right.
Jury Nullification (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I read "nullification" I think of deaths in Tron...
Re:Jury Nullification (Score:5, Informative)
and in most of the US, its borderline illegal to even MENTION JN in court. judges will kick you out, lock you up, threaten you, try to scare you. voire dire does all it can to try to reject jurors that even KNOW what JN is. and if you tell them during VD that you don't know what JN is and then later, they find out you do, you are in contempt.
its all neatly stacked up so that your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are not vocalized or listed or communicated to you.
"nice liberty you got there; would be a shame if something were to happen to it"
Re:Jury Nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically a kangaroo court. Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense. Meaning even if he revealed illegal behavior in the federal governments he can't argue that as a defense. He will be tried only on whether or not he released the documents, which no one disputes, and will be put away for the rest of his life.
The entire system is rigged to put him away in a safe, dark, and silent cell where he won't embarrass anymore powerful people.
Re:Jury Nullification (Score:5, Informative)
Under FISA he is not allowed to use wistleblowing as a defense.
Actually, it's worse than that. Two of the counts he's charged with are violations of the Espionage Act [wikipedia.org], which was intended to prevent US citizens from colluding with US enemies during World War I. Unfortunately, the law provides no room for affirmative defenses at all: if secrets were leaked, you're guilty, and the court isn't allowed to consider even the slightest sliver of the surrounding context. Did you uncover something illegal? Doesn't matter. Is this course of action the only one that would have turned up malfeasance by intelligence agencies? That can't be discussed.
The reason the Obama administration's insistence that Snowden come back to the US to "face a fair trial" is so flagrantly disingenuous is that the act that he's charged under, by virtue of its complete lack of defenses, is explicitly and intentionally designed to result in anything but a fair trial. They're inviting him home for a railroading, and it doesn't matter whether it's done in private or public: he's fucked.
You should watch citizenfour, which spends quite a bit of time on this specific issue of how inappropriate the Espionage Act is for Snowden's actions, and just how unfair is is designed to be.
Repressive State Apparatus Doubles Down (Score:5, Insightful)
I received the email about whitehouse.gov's response and, to my mind, Monaco's statement doesn't veer one degree from goal of punishing Snowden as an warning to others, rather than protecting him as a whistleblower.
When Monaco and the rest of the Whitehouse talk about "hid[ing] behind the cover of an authoritarian regime" they all should look in the mirror.
Is anyone actually suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone actually suprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
actually " a hundred million signatures" would change the conversation entirely.
Re: Is anyone actually suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have had a hundred million signatures on that petition, and it wouldn't matter, because pardoning him would set a dangerous precedent, essentially declaring open season on any and all State secrets that anyone with access thought should be revealed. You can't even blame Obama for any of this in this case; any head of any government would say 'no' for the same reasons.
I absolutely can blame Obama and Bush. The government was breaking the law and violating the constitutional rights of its citizens. I'm not surprised at the response but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. Remember this is the same government that has recently used torture, held people without charge or trial, invaded two countries, spied on its own citizens, put digital strip search machines in airports, and on and on.
And it wouldn't set a "dangerous precedent" because this isn't the first time [wikipedia.org] something like this has happened. The only dangerous precedent is if we don't hold the government accountable.
Re:Remember the Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You exaggerate quite a bit. Courts have actually declared the government's spying illegal based on Snowden revelations. Those arguments are continuing and in higher courts but the point is, it goes well beyond some guy thought maybe some secret should be revealed.
Re: (Score:3)
Because avoiding the hang mans noose by virtue of gaining massive public support for your actions and getting clemency that is ultimately dependant on the whim of one man is
declaring open season on any and all State secrets that anyone with access thought should be revealed"
That assertion is ridiculous!
I don't think it in anyway would cause future leakers/whistle-blowers to expect similar outcomes. It might give them a ray of hope but that is about it. Lets face it the American public has actually shown themselves to be rather discerning on this issue. Snowden's actions are viewed very much more favorab
Re: Is anyone actually suprised? (Score:5, Informative)
And when there were whistleblowers before him who tried to report issues they saw. These people don't have the name recognition of Snowden because their reports were hushed up and the whistleblowers were accused of wrongdoing themselves. Snowden saw how "work within the official channels" went and chose a more effective method, albeit one that put him into permanent exile.
Authoritarian Regime (Score:3)
Edward Snowden has done more for the public good than Lisa Monaco ever has. In her mind, Ed is already guilty and should come home to be railroaded and disappeared by the government's security apparatus. Of course, I don't know how she expect him to come home with a revoked passport.
what a moron (Score:2)
Lisa Monaco is a cluleless moron.
>> "he should ... Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and â" importantly â" accept the consequences of his actions"
Read: he should point out our faults then just let us take whatever revenge we feel like.
She is a total moron. How do such people ever get such responsible jobs?
Peace Prize for Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
Give him the Peace Prize and lets see if we would jail a Nobel Laureate
Response from the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
They are fools (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States and the Obama administration are the ones that suffer from having an American claim Asylum in Russia. Right now, Russia benefits from the situation more than anyone else. Snowden himself suffers minor inconveniences relating mainly to lifestyle and the ability to see friends and family.
A Snowden Pardon will not in any way encourage people to do what he did. He did what he did out of patriotism - though some may consider it misguided. Martyrs - whether they are heros or villains - do not concern themselves with such minor punishments.
Such a pardon would benefit everyone except Russia. Russia would lose a major political/moral chip (Look we protect an American from the evil USA - wait a second, where did he go?).
"Jury of peers" (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden has actually said he would go before a jury of peers, in an open trial. The problem is that he faces a military trial, behind closed doors, with no actual representation. So this public statement really is a huge farce.
Re:"Jury of peers" (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden has actually said he would go before a jury of peers, in an open trial. The problem is that he faces a military trial, behind closed doors, with no actual representation. So this public statement really is a huge farce.
Unless Snowden was IN the military or in military custody outside the USA, he does not face a military trial. Once his feet hit US soil, he will have a criminal trial just like anybody else.
The Trial may closed for national security reasons, but until a judge says that's what will happen nobody knows if the trial would be public or not. However, I don't think the government would care either way. They might want to keep some of the evidence out of the public domain, but what point is there to trying to force a secret trial now? They have him dead to rights in the public domain on this already..
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
No Mr President (Score:3)
Okay, I'll bite (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country..."
Here it is, put up or shut up: name one single way that I personally am less "secure" due to Snowden's actions.
That's it. One single example.
Either that, or quit pushing this bullshit.
Civil Disobedience (Score:3)
...ought not to be defined by the government against which it is wielded.
Or... (Score:3)
He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
Or he could be pardoned...
The "He should face the consequences of his actions" argument can be used for any crime. The request for a pardon is a specific request that someone *not* face the consequences of their actions, or more accurately, that the consequences of their actions be changed to "no longer be punished".
It's like she is not even acknowledging what is being asked for.
It's like If I go to a car dealership and ask them if they sell any other cars besides what can be seen in the showroom, and the dealer then proceeds to list all the cars in the showroom. If he only has what is in the showroom, a better answer is "I only have what is in the showroom"
If the don't intend to pardon Snowden, all they need to do is say "We don't intend to pardon Mr. Snowden". If everyone *always* had to "face the consequences of their actions", then pardons wouldn't even exist.
Consequences of his actions (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions."
Unlike James Clapper who enjoys no consequences for his actions- lying under oath to Congress.
Two legs good, four legs bad.
Obama's administration is going to go down in history as the one that best highlights how politically well connected players are "too big to jail" even as law enforcement became more ferocious towards the common and petty criminals.
The entire NSA engaged in unconstitutional spying on Americans on a scale that made the event which inspired the Church Commission look pale in comparison. That is not my opinion, that is a fact established by the courts. They knowingly and deliberately destroyed evidence of torture in order to evade criminal prosecution. No banking executives were prosecuted for a criminal scam which literally brought the economy down. No banking executives were prosecuted for the near daily now criminal operations from Sinaola Mexico cartel (the video-beheading gang) drug money launderig to LIBOR rating rigging to the criminal MITM attack on the stockmarket which was the subject of the book Flashboys.
Yeah I have mixed emotions about Snowden. But I dont' have mixed emotions about any of the trillion dollar criminals who destroyed millions and millioins of people's life savings and millions and millions of people's lives.
So your snarky shit about facingthe consequences of your actions rigs hollow to these ears. How's Eric Holder doing these days working for the entities he declained to prosecute? You nkow, the same ones he worked for before he was AG?
Oh, we paid all that money back, they say. Yeah? Did you go back and retoractively undestroy all the lives which were destroyed because of your actions also? Did you reset the course of all those personal histories back to what they were before they lost their jobs their homes their savings their time ?
How is THAT REAL cost not calculated in what you did. You paid the government back the bailout money. Fuck you and the horse named the Obama Administration you rode in on.
This from someone who cried tears of joy when this President did his inaugural walk.
Re:Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Informative)
"and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions." Isn't whistle blowing legally protected from retaliation?
On paper, but they've already wiped their ass with it so they don't care much.
Re:By that logic (Score:5, Informative)
Silly plebe. Laws only apply to the little people. Not those with wealth and power.
Re:I'd be more sympathetic if he weren't a doucheb (Score:5, Informative)
Instead, he indiscriminately handed sensitive national secrets over to a foreigner,
Glenn Greenwald is a "foreigner"? Since when?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this..
Snowden was about advancing HIS image and person and not so much about exposing something that was wrong. Where I believe he thought he had legal grounds, he was self deluded and stupid.
Now he's just a pawn being used to poke the eye of the country he says he loved by a two bit despot.... Way to go dude, you sure messed that one up.
There goes my karma....
Re: (Score:3)
To clarify this the phone metadata was not declared unconstitutional, but illegal. There is a difference between the two. Furthermore the court deferred judgement based on the actions of congress who where debating reform to the patriot act at the time.
Secondly whether or not Snowden revealed illegality within the Federal Government's behavior is irrelevant. He is being tried under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which does not allow the defendant to use wistleblowing as a defense. What this m
Re:The Party Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Your choice, but I suggest you pay attention to the primaries at least and go out of your way to vote in them. The main problem for both parties is the lack of interest in selecting the proper candidates, and the tendency to elect the "best looking" and best funded over the best candidate.
After that, may I suggest you pay attention to the principles behind the positions of each of the candidates and pick the one that most matches what you actually agree with. Not the sound bites on TV, their actual positions and records...
Of course this may take too much effort, in which case, just forget the whole thing and stop complaining about those who are elected in races you didn't vote in.