ACLU Is Launching A Campaign To Convince President Obama To Pardon Edward Snowden (fusion.net) 343
Coinciding with the launch of Oliver Stone's movie Snowden in select theaters this week, a coalition of civil rights groups are launching a campaign to convince President Obama to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Fusion reports: The effort, which is organized by the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, will gather signatures from regular people and endorsements from celebrities. Snowden will speak by video link from Moscow at a press conference on Wednesday morning in New York, and an initial list of "prominent legal scholars, policy experts, human rights leaders, technologists and former government officials" in support of the cause will be released, according to a statement from the campaign. A presidential pardon would mean that Snowden could come home from Moscow, where he's lived for the past three years, without the fear of being prosecuted. He currently faces federal charges of violating the Espionage Act and stealing government property, even though his disclosures led to reform of the wiretapping program by Congress. Many Snowden supporters are hoping the movie Snowden, which opens in U.S. theaters on Friday, will spur support for a pardon. "I think the value of the movie is that it's lsikely to reach millions of people who have not been paying close attention to Snowden or to the debate about surveillance and privacy," Snowden's layer at the ACLU, Ben Wizner, told Fusion. "Those people will emerge from the movie more educated about surveillance and with more positive attitudes toward Snowden."
ho hum (Score:2)
wow.. would that mean "more educated about surveillance" .. shame that lawyer wasn't more educated in grammar!
Should do it anyway (Score:2)
If Snowden has done things since leaving the US, they are still subject to other actions.
Besides, since we frequently remotely execute even American citizens in other countries for lesser actions, pardoning Snowden might make him easier to target when we do break international law to execute him.
Trial and Then Pardon (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who is displeased with how Snowden went about this, I'm not opposed to the idea of a pardon. However I don't believe a carte blanche pardon is appropriate, or sets good precedence.
What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial. And then, once the trial is complete, a pardon can be issued if necessary. Even if what Snowden did was ultimately a good thing, I believe there still needs to be repercussions for it - that he needs to take responsibility for his actions. A trial to firmly establish the facts of the case and whether he did anything against the law, even if it can only end in not-guilty or a presidential pardon, is something I think would be a reasonable compromise.
I see you didn't get the memo. (Score:2)
You are either for drawing and quartering him or for complete pardon. No in between here folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as long as he's still being charged under the Espionage Act. Under that act, he is not allowed to defend himself. That's written into the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Trial and Then Pardon (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial.
Stand trial for what, though?
One of Snowden's complaints (and the chief reason, according to him, that he has not returned to the US to stand trial) is that he has been charged on two counts under the Espionage Act, which prevents him from defending himself in open court. Presumably you, too, would prefer that he was allowed to make a public interest defense?
Re: (Score:2)
My preference is to follow the letter of the law. If that includes charges under the Espionage Act, then so be it.
A pardon is the executive - the leader of the people - granting yo
Re: (Score:2)
My preference is to follow the letter of the law.
Assuming the law is not an ass, that's also my preference.
Re: (Score:2)
Which isn't made more likely by allowing cameras in the courtroom. I'm don't think he should get to grandstand as a substitute for a defense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm don't think he should get to grandstand as a substitute for a defense.
Yeah, I'm not in favour of allowing cameras in the courtroom either, but then, I don't live in a country where that happens.
Oh, and FWIW, I don't think politicians should get to grandstand as a substitute for a prosecution, but they do it anyway, just on a bigger scale.
Re: (Score:2)
There would need to be guarantees that he wouldn't be tortured like Chelsea Manning, and would be able to have his trial in open court.
Re:Trial and Then Pardon (Score:5, Informative)
Besides as a man of principles, I am sure he is anxious for his day in court where he can stare down the corrupt powers-that-be under the unblinking gaze of public scrutiny, [...]
It's flowery language you're using here, but according to Snowden and his lawyer, this is more or less correct [theguardian.com]. The Espionage Act does not allow Snowden to make a "I did it in the public interest"-type defence.
Whether or not he would actually return, were he charged with something that did give him the possibility of saying in open court why he was motivated to do what he did, is an open question. Still, right now he doesn't have the option of having his day in court. A show trial is never your day in court.
List of people already pardoned by Obama (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I count 57. Bigger number for Bush, and other presidents.
Number of ever people pardoned that embarrassed a government: 0.
(Possible exception during the revolution, when the rebels became the government.)
Obama is deeply conservative. Hell will freeze over before he would pardon Snowden.
And let us not forget CIA director George Tenet was given a Presidential Medal of Freedom for lying about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. Resulted in many thousands of dead. Never challenged by Obama. Because Tenet worked for the system. Snowden worked against the system.
Let me be honest (Score:2, Troll)
I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved. I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.
Yeah, I get the typical standard response of wrapping oneself in the 13-starred early American flag wearing a 3 pointed hat, and shouting, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved.
Apparently, it can't, else at least one govt would have provided evidence of that. But I'm also guessing you'd ban cars, guns and junk food, as they kill around 10,000x as many people as terrorists.
I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government.
It's also repeatedly demonstrated throughout the world that whistleblowers, journalists and the public they protect will be worse off.
If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it.
a) You'd never know you were under surveillance so you'd never get to challenge it.
b) Are you dumb enough to take the govt's word for it or should a judge get to make that decisio
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution."
When the Constitution can be set aside whenever it suits the government then no, you aren't still covered. They've already shredded the 4th. They would like to take away the 2nd based on your name being placed, without any due process,on a secret list that you aren't allowed to know you are on.
It's fine to be in favor of changing your Constitutional rights. But they have to do it the right way, by actually amending them rather than ju
Yeah... (Score:3)
Tons of people blow their stack over Snowden's leaks. They are misguided and wrong in my opinion. What I've seen does not detail or risk named people (I may have missed something) but does bright line where our own government is breaking the law, and not just a little bit.
Look, crazy people will be able to harm us, no question. It's not giving away our own liberty and justice in the process of trying to stop them that makes the difference between an oppressive, unjust government and one that we say we want.
Proofreading a lost art? (Score:2)
All right. Who proofread that little gem?
The NSA works for President Obama (Score:2)
The only plausible way the pardon will happen (Score:3)
Perhaps if Trump wins the presidency, Obama will use his last day in office to pardon Snowden -- simply to create a vocal domestic critic of spying during Trump's presidency in the hope of weakening his domestic spying powers. Not probable, but possible. If Clinton wins, it seems very unlikely he'd unleash a critic on her on his way out the door unless there's more animosity between them than is apparent. If Johnson or Stein wins, of course, then Obama doesn't need to do it because they will.
No way the president pardons Mr. Snowden (Score:2)
But ... (Score:2)
Snowden himself isn't begging your pardon, he just wants a fair trial; "fair" in the sense that he can use a "public interest" defense (whistleblower) instead of having it automatically disqualified. This is something Congress could (and should) allow.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sno... [yahoo.com]
As I see it, Clinton (with her email server) and Snowden are either both innocent or both guilty of disclosures. Maybe Obama could pardon Clinton on his way out, for any non-crimes she may or may not have accidentally committed
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, better add a month on to that 4 weeks.
Re:Trying to convince Obama? (Score:5, Informative)
He's about to leave office. The elections are in less than 4 weeks.
They're targeting the wrong president.
They should be targeting Donald Gump or Hilary Pneumonia and trying to convince them to make an election promise.
Except that it's become tradition for presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their last day in office. If your political career is basically over then noone can do much if you pardon all your friends.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
Target the lame duck that isn't answerable to anybody. He can sign the pardon on his way to board Marine One to be flown back to Chicago to start writing his next book, and there isn't jack shit that anybody could do about it.
The next President, whoever it is, would have to live with it, the reaction of Congress, etc. for the rest of their term.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. One is more likely to get action from outgoing Obama than from incoming Trump or Clinton. The caution is that that if "they" really want to get someone, they will. One could be pardoned. Then he could be railroaded later on, for some trumped-up charge of a new offense. Or he could just be found lying dead in the gutter some day, victim of a "random mugging".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trying to convince Obama? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you suggesting that Richard Nixon was tried and convicted? Or that Gerald Ford did *not* pardon him?
Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberty and justice are 2 key elements that are supposed to differentiate the USA from those other countries.
I'm guessing you're trolling, but unfortunately so many people actually share this viewpoint. Most of them are uneducated, government/military shills, or just scared of the terrorism boogeyman that has been touted as a justification to strip freedom from citizens.
Snowden did the country and incredible service by unveiling the extent to which the government has over reached its authority.
It would be a huge win if Obama pardoned Snowden, but I have a hard time actually seeing that happen. Obama seems to be too attached to the intelligence community, and this would be seen as a stab in the back.
it would not make one bit of difference (Score:3)
Even if he is pardoned, he'll forever live under a microscope (government holds grudges better than anyone I know) and will have difficulties in finding employment.
Embarassing the government == great resume bullet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:it would not make one bit of difference (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's pardoned he'll live briefly under a microscope until he stops living suddenly under a car, or off the edge of a rocky cliff edge.
Don't confuse a pardon with an obligation for the government to allow him to keep breathing. Not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Or once the balance of power has shifted a bit, he will just be prosecuted anyway for some different crime.
Re: (Score:2)
True, some TLA will raid his house based on an anonymous terrorisim tipoff and they will find kiddyporn on his computer, fake logs and evidence will be trotted out. put him away and destroy his reputation at the same time.
Bravery includes putting your name on it? (Score:2)
I can't see the AC troll you're replying to, but I was able to see your comment only because it got enough positive mod points to raise it to visibility.
Actually, I understand not putting your name on it. Get your own NSA file right here from slashdot. Now do you actually think they can't get your identity if they care that much?
Sad, but that's the reality of where America is now. Actually, I can go you a couple of notches higher on the paranoia scale. I think Snowden was probably played for a fool, and he
Re: (Score:2)
No he should not be shot but he is a traitor.
It comes down to this. President Obama should be in jail or Snowden. Which is it?
Frankly no contractor or military personal has the right to decide that they know what is better for the nation the elected government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the phone surveillance program reveal that he is facing charges for. (He might be facing charges for those as well but can claim whistleblower status and most likely win against those charges.) It's all the other secrets he revealed to the world and t
The man is a traitor and should be bought shots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
Re:The man is a traitor and should be bought shots (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, the British did march on Washington DC AFTER the US was a sovereign nation,
Well, you had just invaded Canada, while Britain was busy with Napoleon.
and they would have probably stretched the necks on more than one traitor if they had a chance
Not after the Paris Treaty of 1783. One of those traitors even became ambassador to Great Britain.
Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:4, Insightful)
He committed Treason.
Actually, it's the intelligence agencies that committed Treason. They obeyed the wishes of America's enemies in their goal to strip all Americans of their Constitutional rights, in order to weaken American and make it more vulnerable.
Snowden was a whistleblower. By definition, all whistleblowers of the government's security apparatus are lawbreakers. If you want nobody to break the law, then you must therefore disallow all such whistleblowers.
I prefer to live in a world where whistleblowers are allowed, even if it results in some lawbreaking. I have no problem with some kinds of lawbreaking. For example, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for his crimes, so I believe some criminals have the potential to be great and good people.
At tremendous personal risk to himself, Snowden needed to engage in criminal actions in order to expose the Treason of the government's security apparatus. In the process of uncovering the Treason, there was some collateral damage, due to the exposure of some sensitive intelligence. To call that collateral damage "Treason" is to willfully ignore the true perpetrators of the Treason: the rogue intelligence officials whose crimes are of a much more massive scale, and whose victims number in the hundreds of millions.
Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at ALL the laws on the books at federal, state, county, and municipal levels... EVERYONE is a criminal even if they don;t realize it, that's a huge part of the problem, a legal system out of control...
Re: (Score:2)
Punishing this man would send a message discouraging other whistle blowers from doing what he did. That would be a very terrible thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the "intelligence apparatus" and its usefulness... Please. To do what? Protect human life? Congress could save more human beings THIS WEEK in the US by banning tobacco and classifying nicotine a narcotic.
Deaths due to terrorism since 1995 in the US: 3,264 (source) [umd.edu]
Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source) [cdc.gov]
I should mention that although smoking kills 10,000 people a week, I don't support banning it, since that would require taking away our liberties and freedoms. But so does government surveillance, and I would ban that. Its too expensive, doesn't protect all that much life, and tramples on our ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source) [cdc.gov]
That's the deaths from all smoking. According to your link the annual U.S. deaths from second-hand smoke totals 42,000, which is 115 per day.
More interesting is the comparison, that for every 10 deaths of smokers there is 1 death by second-hand smoke. That's higher than I would have thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you are ignoring the much larger numbers of people killed by the US intelligence apparatus outside the country.
Including thousands of Americans killed in Iraq because of those Weapons of Mass Destruction "found" by the intelligence apparatus. (And not a few locals.)
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure . This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You initially wrote this.
Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day
You are attributing 1,300 deaths a day due to second hand smoke which is wrong. CDC only claims 42,000 deaths annually are caused by secondhand smoke which works out to 115 deaths a day due to second hand smoke. You either misunderstood what the CDC provided or are intentionally misrepresenting the CDC's data.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just as soon as there is some kind of reason to believe it has in any way done anything even remotely like stop WWIII.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because China and Russia are great examples of free countries where people have the constitutional freedoms of the US. It's gotten pretty far that people are now demanding or expecting the US government to act in a way a dictatorship does.
Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Yes, because China and Russia are great examples of free countries where people have the constitutional freedoms of the US."
There is a certain amount of irony in that statement, considering the paths the USA has been taking so often.... the "unpatriot act", the trend to electronic censorships, attacks on gun rights, the endless spying on citizens, the use of searching without probable cause, the misuse of "interstate commerce" to justify just about any law, the tons and tons of Federal programs and laws that are rights reserved to only the States, misuse of the Executive order to make law that is clearly the realm of the Legislative branch, secret lists that deprive citizens of their rights without due process, seizure of property without oversight, trials that take years to start which are certainly not "speedy", cruel and unusual punishments while incarcerated, I could go on, but you get the idea.
The Constitutional freedoms of the US have never been under more attack. Given time, how much like China and Russia will things turn out? So many people act like the Constitution is an outdated list of guidelines or suggestions, and not the rule book... just something that can just be ignored when not convenient or when people scream for more "safety" or just twisted to mean whatever is fashionable at the moment.
Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Constitutional freedoms of the US have never been under more attack" -- man, they need to teach history better in the schools. Constitutional freedoms have always been under attack -- consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the House Un-American Activities Committee (1938 to 1975), the FBI under Hoover. And that's not even considering that for most of the USA's existence constitutional freedoms were regularly denied to persons of the wrong race. Things are no worse than before, and better for a lot of Americans. It's just that everyone now thinks they are special. The civil libertarians have always had work to do, and always will.
Re: (Score:2)
I said they have never been more under attack, but I wasn't trying to imply they haven't always been under attack (I just think it is accelerating). I agree with everything you said!!
Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:4, Funny)
Attacks on gun rights? What attacks on gun rights have there been?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you jest.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
a google search turned up nothing.
Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:4, Interesting)
Check the Fox News site. Didn't you know the government is taken everybody's guns ? No really. Bunch of jackbooted government thugs showed up at my cousin's place in Shitville Idaho and took her guns. No really. It happened. Told her the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to an S-300 Surface to Air Missile launcher. She said she uses it to go duck hunting but would they listen ?
By this time next week you won't be able to carry an AK-47 gun into Arby's and scare the kids without some government thug showing up cause the 'owner called the police because he thought he was being robbed' and shooting you ... I mean, seriously, that's only supposed to happen to black people ! And on Friday, they'll come collect them from your house. Honest! My niecedaughter told me !
Okay. Getting serious. Just a couple of months ago a man, guilty of no crime, was pulled over in a 'routine traffic stop'. He happened to be black. He had a gun, which he legally owned. He informed the cop that he had a, legal, gun and did absolutely nothing violent - obeying the officer completely. When the officer asked for 'license and registration' he reached for it... and was promptly shot dead. All this was captured on video - we have undeniable proof of what happened. Now you would THINK that the NRA would be up in arms about this. For once there we have an example of an ACTUAL assault on gun rights - when cops shoot you for having a gun you legally own and informed them you had with you. A gun you did not threaten them with, or commit any crime with. This actually WAS an assault on gun rights (that it was yet another black man killed by a cop is another matter). ... crickets. Not a single response from the NRA. No press release. No protest. No rally. No mention on their website. Not so much as a fucking tweet.
And what
The NRA may have gotten a tiny glimmer of sympathy from me - if they were acting against genuine oppression of legitimate gun owners - all of them, that includes black people in traffic stops.
If they wouldn't stand up for him - then nothing they DO stand up for is worth protecting.
Re: (Score:2)
One more, "trials that take years to start which are certainly not 'speedy'." IANAL but if your case takes over 60 days to start the judge will let you off. That is, unless the Republicans have stopped the President from appointing judges in your district. Then it can be extended to up to a year.
If you are talking about civil cases, the constitution doesn't mention them. No guarentee there.
Re:The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever China and Russia are, neither is a dictatorship. That is an ignorant characterization.
The President of China (head of state; mostly a figurehead) is elected by the National People's Congress, which in turn is elected by an interesting hierarchical election system, ultimately by the people. The Premier (leader of the State Council; head of government) is nominated by the President and approved by the Congress.
Russia is a multi-party state; more so than the US. The President is elected by the people. He appoints the Prime Minister. The Federal Assembly (Parliament) has two houses: the Duma, elected by proportional representation, and the Federation Council, whose members are separately selected by 85 "federal subjects" (very loosely analogous to "states" in the US) - similar to the original method of selection to the US Senate.
Sure, China has a shadow government in the form of the Communist Party, which controls the selection of those who stand for election Congress. Big deal. The USA has a shadow government in the form of the Demopublican establishment, with a death grip on the selection of those who stand for election to Congress and for President.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has a shadow government in the form of the Demopublican establishment, with a death grip on the selection of those who stand for election to Congress and for President.
Trump is anything but the Republican party elite's nominee of choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine him still alive in China, Russia, etc... if he had been a member of their security apparatus and sold their secrets to another nation.
"Sold" is obviously the wrong word here.
But to answer your question: If he had been a member of Russia's security apparatus, and he had blown the whistle, and he had escaped to the United States, then whether or not he was still alive would largely depend on how famous he was. Solzhenitsyn managed to die of old age.
Re:It's just another fundraiser. (Score:5, Insightful)
but he also acted indiscriminately and betrayed American intelligence-gathering methods to foreign powers
So why shouldn't he be pardoned for that? People keep forgetting that it was that or not say anything at all. Legal whistle blowing doesn't work. That means there will always be some legal angle like the one you espouse that allows the powers-that-be to punish anyone that steps out of line.
Re: (Score:2)
So why shouldn't he be pardoned for that?
Because Obama doing so now would hand the election over to Trump? Doing so after the elections are held might die down enough to not make it matter in 4 years but now? No, please no...
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously no pardons take place until the lame-duck period starts after the election.
But there is no way Obama would pardon Snowden. It was his freaking government doing all the illegal shit that Snowden reported on.
Re: (Score:2)
Name the specific methods exposed and assets betrayed. Or shut the fuck up. Your choice.
Re: It's just another fundraiser. (Score:4, Informative)
There was a clear demarcation between the domestic related material and the foreign intelligence related material.
No, there was not.
That was the whole point and why people are upset! Supposedly 'foreign' intelligence-gathering scooping up masses of domestic data on US citizens and being retained in essence forever.
Way to (intentionally) miss the pachyderm sitting in your lap!
Of course it's quite likely you're paid (like many others posting on related topics in which governments have an interest) to post such utter nonsense so it's not really surprising.
Strat
Re:It's just another fundraiser. (Score:5, Interesting)
Would Edward Snowden ever accept a carefully worded pardon, seriously he would have to be nuts. You can guarantee the US would treat that pardon exactly like they treated treaties with the citizens of the original American nations, and just like the treat citizens of the current nation. Those agreements worth less than toilet paper (the paper they use simply to hard and shiny to be used effectively). When being investigated those government organisations lied under oath, and that was corruptly protected by the current government administration, who broke their constitutional oaths to do so.
Edward Snowden is hero for freedom, democracy, justice and the truth. The secrets they corruptly kept and the lies they told, all funded by tax payers funds broke all the core required elements of democracy and it is only mass corruption that is keeping them all from being properly prosecuted and serving extended custodial sentences.
Forget about pardoning Snowden, let's focus of prosecuting the real criminals Edwards Snowden's courage exposed. I am sure he will find that of far, far more value that a vapour ware peace treaty between himself and a corrupt government.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, there have been whistle blowers that were abused and persecuted unjustly, and some of the people that engaged in that abuse are under investigation now.
Perhaps it would be educational for you to point out NSA whistle blowers who haven't been abused and persecuted unjustly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's just another fundraiser. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.
Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be you, cold_fjord.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he didn't "betray" anything to "foreign powers". The claim is stupid. He blew the whistle on blatantly unconstitutional US intelligence activities.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
1) exposed the fact Eric holder lied to congress multiple times concerning domestic intelligence and broad data collection against us citizens accused of no crimes. (Purgery is a crime)
2) irrefutably exposed that the NSA performs illegal wiretapping on a routine, standard operating policy basis. (Illegal search is a high crime, specifically denounced in the constitution.)
3) irrefutably exposed that the NSA shares data on foreign persons collected in bulk in exchange for bulk data on american citizens, again, for people who are not accused of any crime, or part of any investigation. (Some of these countries are not on diplomatically friendly terms, making this very close to genuine treason.)
But of course, the guy who calls attention to the elephant in the room is the bad guy.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the first reaction to what he did was "jail him! Kill him!". But keep it up. Maybe you could scare off all smart people like that.
Re: Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
If that were true, then several current and former Presidents, some of their cabinet members, a bunch of senior military officers, many, many CIA, NSA, FBI and DEA officers, and probably quite a few members of Congress would be in jail right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read the quote you posted ? It literally says the OPPOSITE of what you think it says.
It says depending on the legal system it could, indeed, be declared unconstitutional by any court.
The US legal system is one of those where any court can make such a declaration. However, such findings from a lower court are only valid in the jurisdiction of that lower court, and only if it's appealed will it, after passing through all the layers reach the supreme court which is the only court that can declare
Half & Half [Re:Better yet] (Score:2)
It's possible half of what he did was "good" and half was "bad". In the legal system, doing good doesn't usually counter-act the bad.
Let's say you rescued a child from a burning building, and then an hour later you kicked a dog and broke its leg. Rescuing the child doesn't cancel the kicking act in most courts.
Some of the stuff Ed released may turn out to be legitimate to release, but other stuff perhaps not.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible half of what he did was "good" and half was "bad". In the legal system, doing good doesn't usually counter-act the bad.
Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.
Or to use your example, you won't be charged with forcible entry or damage to property for kicking in a door to save a kid in a fire.
In both cases, the collateral damage is seen as worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.
Great! Anyone out there need saving?
[ Wait. Do the two things need to be related? ]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. You're allowed to kill someone to save your or another person's life.
No, you're allowed to kill someone threatening your or another persons life, but you can't shoot someone for the last life preserver on the boat, or the last parachute on the plane.
Re:slope (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no need to pardon anyone that has not been charged with anything.
Somebody should have told that to Gerald Ford [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to pardon anyone that has not been charged with anything.
He has been charged with one count of theft of government property, and two counts of violating the Espionage Act.
Re: (Score:2)
However, his revelations of the NSA's foreign activities crossed the line and makes him a patriot.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because we votge for representatives, not issue by issue. Don't like it, what have you done about it? Contributed money to a better candidate? Canvassed for them? Run yourself? Heck, even vote?
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden is guilty of felony offenses. That's clear. He'd be convicted in a fair trial. Why he did what he did doesn't matter to these particular laws.
The way to get him legally cleared is not to subvert the law in a courtroom but to issue a pardon.