President Obama Says He Can't Pardon Snowden (arstechnica.com) 534
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.
And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
President Ford pardoned Nixon for the watergate scandal, and Nixon never stepped inside a court for his misdeeds.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is just phoning it in nowadays. What started off so well 8 years ago ("Hope and Yes we can" in 2008) has morphed into "hopeless" and "no we can't."
Like the promise for the most open administration ever, and giving the insurance companies the ACA - the gift that keeps on giving. Even a year ago I would have said that Obama would go down in history as one of the best presidents. Was I ever wrong.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution very explicitly grants the president the power to grant pardons at least for federal crimes there isn't really any legal question about that. There is lots president for presidents granting pardons for alleged crimes. So Obama certainly can legally pardon Snowden, he has the power as the executive to do that and he would be on much much firmer legal ground doing so that he is with many of his other executive actions!
He is just to much the sad sack to take responsibility, and say "I won't" while he thinks he can get away with "I can't".
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
We were attacked by a group of stateless outlaws on 9/11.
We retaliated against them shortly after, and opted to go after the state that had provided them sanctuary, and overthrew Taliban.
And then the Bush Administration provided fake evidence to the world about WMD's and terror connections in Iraq. When someone that knew better said something, they outed the fact that his wife was a CIA agent, putting her and her contacts at severe risk.
And then they invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam, created a HUGE power vacuum, and the entire Baath party out on the street, military included. So you gave them zero reason to do anything but fight against the invaders. And provided a training ground for the worlds insurgents to come and practice their urban warfare skills, and spread out from there.
So yes. The middle east was already an unstable place, but Bush/Cheney Wars were entirely unnecessary, avoidable, and had horrendous side effects for us, the Iraqi's and the entire region.
Re: (Score:3)
We were attacked by a group of stateless outlaws on 9/11.
Stateless Outlaws from Saudi Arabia.
Stateless Outlaws funded by Saudi Arabia.
And we invaded Iraq unrelated to 9/11. Bush was looking to kill Saddam in revenge for Daddy losing a second term. Yes, we went to war with Iraq to kill one and only one person for revenge for something they didn't even do. The Presidential handlers didn't stop it because the VP (and others) made trillions on the war profiteering. There was never a reason to invade Iraq. Bush and Bush alone (including the administration) are r
Re: (Score:3)
this tired canard again?
look pal:
-the WMD claims from the Bush admin. were specifically about current and ongoing WMD manufacturing.
-the weapons found were chemical weapons dated from the 1980s, weapons sold to Iraq during the Reagan years, when we were propping up Saddam during his war against Iran, and coincidentally sold to them by Halliburton while Cheney worked there.
-even the Bush administration itself admitted the existence of these old weapons multiple times during the Iraq War, and that they were N
Re: (Score:3)
>We have no reason to be in the middle east...
Of course we do. We want to maintain control of their oil and opium production.
tag line? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my mind, the difference is that Nixons pardon was never legally challenged by Congress or any other body - there is no way to say that Nixons parson would or would not have stood up to legal scrutiny. You can bet your perky little ass that any pardon issued to Snowdon would definitely be challenged.
With that in mind, it could easily be the case that the legal and political landscape supporting the validity of such pardons has changed in the intervening years - Congress may simply ignore the pardon and r
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
The power of a president to grant a pardon is only limited by not being able to pardon in cases of impeachment.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Seems pretty straight-forward.
1 Snowden is alleged to have committed offences against the United States.
2. He is not being impeached.
3. Obama is president.
4. He can grant a reprieve or pardon according to the above-cited Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1.
Congress cannot ignore the pardon. Snowden is free to testify and admit every damn thing, and there's nothing they can do about it, since it would have been pardoned. He probably would, because it would give him a platform and a chance to get all the crap into the congressional record. Congress does NOT want that. They would shit their collective pants.
Re: (Score:3)
"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
- Barack Obama, March 30, 2007
Maybe he just didn't read it all the way to the end.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The devil is in the details. For what specific crime would Obama preemptively grant a reprieve or pardon to Snowden? And wouldn't that just open up the ability for law enforcement to charge Snowden with a related crime?
He could pardon Snowden for "all offenses that he has committed or may have committed or taken part in", just like Ford pardoned Nixon:
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
You should stop sucking government-issue cock. He didn't give a single state secret to Russia. To the contrary, they were given to a consortium of news agencies, who then vetted every one to ensure that no names of any operatives were exposed, no field agents were put in danger.
But of course, blame the messenger when you don't like the message. When the government breaks the law, it should be exposed. That's why we make the distinction between law-abiding governments and lawless regimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:4, Insightful)
He's probably going to refuse to pardon Mrs. Clinton for the same reason, so he needs to at least maintain an appearance of consistency, otherwise, it will put Obama on the wrong side of history.
Re: And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
The president has 0 power to do most of the things that people apparently think they do.
That's entirely true, but largely irrelevant to the current discussion. The President certainly does have the power to pardon Snowden; there is no legal impediment, and now that Obama will almost certainly never hold any political office again, there is no substantial political impediment either.
Another commenter here noted that Ford pardoned Nixon when Nixon had never been in court over Watergate. Wikipedia agrees: "A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime". So when Obama says he "can't" pardon Snowden, he's doing something far worse than "phoning it in" - he's lying. It also seems rather cowardly - he should either pardon Snowden, or give whatever real reasons he may have for not doing so. When he hides behind "I can't" and implies that the law forbids him from doing it, he is simply uttering mealy-mouthed weasel words. Way to tarnish your own legacy, Mister President.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:4, Insightful)
When he hides behind "I can't" and implies that the law forbids him from doing it,
Far be it for me to defend Barry here, but it could be that his "I can't" is not a legal statement, but a statement of an ethical position that he chooses not to violate. Short for "I can't bring myself" or "I can't violate my own ethical standards ..."
No, sorry, what was I thinking. Now I have to clean the coffee I just snorted out my nose out of my keyboard.
As for "tarnishing a legacy", no, this won't do that. Most people either don't care/don't know about Snowden, or think he's guilty and shouldn't be pardoned. It truly is a minority that cares and wants the pardon. /. is a self-selected community and basing estimates of what the real world thinks on what you read here is unjustified. There are far too many other things that people either love him for or hate him for, for this to be a blip on the radar.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't hold water, because "I can't" was followed by an explanation of why he couldn't. and it happened to be total bullshit.
Re: And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:3)
You could argue that he gave a reason for saying why he won't. But can't means he couldn't even if he wanted to.
Re: (Score:3)
> Lacking that, he really *can't* preimtively pardon him without establishing a pretty bad precedent.
Gerald Ford establish that precedent when he pardoned Richard Nixon.
Re: And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:4, Informative)
Gerald Ford establish that precedent when he pardoned Richard Nixon.
John Adams established that precedent when he granted amnesty to everyone involved in Frie's Rebellion. And if the list on Wikipedia for Washington was complete, we'd probably see he did some pre-emptive pardons, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one thing is fairly likely; Trump won't be pardoning him either. There's an old adage "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
So... you are saying that because Obama isn't going to pardon Snowden, he is phoning it in?
People put WAY too many hopes into the role of president. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment if you do this.
The president has 0 power to do most of the things that people apparently think they do.
You know, at some point you people will have to admit that Obama failed. Completely. Give. It. Up.
In this case we know that the President absolutely has the power to pardon Snowden. The grandparent makes the case absolutely by showing precedent (that's a big word that means "it's been done before") and some of the uncle posts provide further links.
So, the President absolutely has this power. He knows it. He's playing both sides by saying "gee, I wish I could, but I can't." It's a lie, but it gives idiots like you (wow, how did I know?) the cover to drool out "duh, he wants to but he, der, doesn't have the power to pardon Snowden" when someone calls him out on it.
It's the same way Democrats have been promising illegal aliens that they'll take care of them and protect them from evil Republicans and make the citizens while at the same time Obama has ramped up deportations to the point that he's sent more home than Bush and Clinton combined.
You're what we call a "useful idiot". I know, more of those pesky three-syllable words, but you might try looking it up to see what it means.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
And likewise, you will consider Trump a failed president if he doesn't pardon Snowden? And you will consider him a failed president if he continues the Obama-era practice of deporting those deemed a threat to national security, border security and public safety?
If not, you're what we call a "hypocrite". I know, more of those pesky three syllable words, but you might try looking it up to see what it means.
The problem isn't Obama's failure to pardon Snowden. It's the lying. I'd have more respect for him if he said "I could pardon Snowden if I wanted to but I don't want to". Instead, he's lying about it so that idiots like you can claim that he wants to do the right thing but can't.
I'm not a Trump supporter. I suppose you live in the typical black and white world where I have to love one and hate the other, so if I say anything you consider "bad" about Obama that means I'm a Trump fan.
I live in a different world than you, one where people can actually have far more complicated opinions and can be critical of politicians of all stripes. But, I can understand how a simpleton would be scared of such a place where people think for themselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Ooops.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/22796/Ex-parte-Garland-Significance.html
Re: And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Funny)
What is jrank and why should anybody trust in law matters a site that confuses prosecution with persecution?
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
You're right. [slate.com]
I think Obama is using that excuse to dodge the question of pardoning Snowden. Just like Trump dodged releasing his taxes by saying he couldn't because he was under audit. Which was also not true: there's no legal impediment to releasing your taxes if you're under audit.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
No one ever said it wasn't legal for him to release those documents (which are neither his taxes nor his tax returns). They said it was unwise to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
No one ever said it wasn't legal for him to release those documents
Trump did.
Several times.
Referring specifically to his taxes.
Including on live TV, during the first debate.
Even after the head of the IRS said he could release them.
So you committed two falsehoods here: first you moved the goalposts (saying it wasn't his tax returns), and then you denied that he said what he said.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right. [slate.com]
I think Obama is using that excuse to dodge the question of pardoning Snowden. Just like Trump dodged releasing his taxes by saying he couldn't because he was under audit. Which was also not true: there's no legal impediment to releasing your taxes if you're under audit.
Not actually "just like" that at all. All this relativism in politics is killing it. A democrat and republican can do exactly the same thing and otherwise sane rational people will defend one and crucify the other, depending on which side they like. You're killing this country.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump never claimed he was legally not allowed to. He said it was because no tax attorney would advise one to do this, which is true.
I also think he refused for strategic purposes. It's good schmuck bait. No one who was totally cool with building walls and deporting millions of people would suddenly change their minds if his taxes were bad, and nobody who was voting for Hillary's vagina would suddenly say "gosh Trump is great!" if his taxes proved he was the greatest businessman of all time. If he had released his tax returns I doubt a single vote would have switched one way or the other. So it was just something that made his detractors and the media (but I repeat myself) full of impotent rage. Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
However, Obama's full of shit here. He could absolutely issue a pardon for Snowden right now. "Edward Snowden is absolved for any crimes he may have committed between 2010 and today." Done. He just doesn't want to, and is lying saying he can't. I wish he would, because I'd like to see Snowden pardoned, and I don't think for a second Trump will do it. Trump might even get his new buddy Vlad to hand him over.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
This is the same CNN site that declared math is racist
Really?? This again. Didn't we just have this discussion yesterday? Oh yeah, we did [slashdot.org]. And in the subsequent discussion, a bunch of people replied to you and said, "Actually, no, if you READ that story, that's NOT fake news -- CNN had a bad and inflammatory headline, but the content is pretty reasonable."
STOP IT. Yes, you can find stuff where CNN has bias or distortion. But you're doing precisely what the "fake news" headlines often do here -- you link to something with an incendiary headline betting that no one will actually read it. And the few people who do read a "fake news" article will often discover it doesn't quite make sense, or the headline was bad, or even that it's a complete parody.
There is actual "fake news" out there. Outright fabrications of events that never happened. Parodies and hoaxes. Your link -- whatever its problems -- isn't it.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact: Math cant be racist.
Fact: Using demographic data isnt racist.
I know facts are sometimes uncomfortable for you. Someone that plays fast and loose with truth such as yourself should be well familiar with this by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Fact: you are posting bullshit.
Do you even understand what racism is? Using statistics can be racist if done in the wrong way, that is what the article was about, not what you want it to be about. There were no claim that math is racist and your other statement is trivially wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that he (Trump) settled the Trump University lawsuit in order to better focus his time on the country.
Ok, one down... Now, how about Trump also suspends all of his other business dealings to better focus on the country.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Informative)
Just like Trump dodged releasing his taxes by saying he couldn't because he was under audit. Which was also not true: there's no legal impediment to releasing your taxes if you're under audit.
There is no legal impediment to confessing everything when arrested either. However in both these cases when your lawyer advices you to say nothing, to show nothing, its probably good advice. Follow it. Trump made it pretty clear his attorneys said do not release it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Above post is absolutely correct (Score:5, Informative)
Well, anything Federal, which includes military offenses and offenses against territorial- and similar governments such as Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C., and their respective local governments. I'm not sure if it applies to crimes against Native American tribes.
For the benefit of non-Americans not familiar with our legal system, the President cannot pardon offenses commited againts the 50 states or their respective local governments.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
And, as Amy Goodman knows firsthand: Propagandists lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just one part of the lie. The other is "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."
Obama fucking well knows that Snowden has been accused under the Espionage Act which does not allow him to defend his acts, only to deny them. Which would be absurd in Snowden's case. It will be an open-and-shut verdict of "guilty, full penalty" without Snowden legally being permitted to open his mouth.
I recommend you read up on the Ellsberg trial: Ellsberg was under the same accusation and the judge just shut the lawyer up when he tried to justify Ellsberg's acts. The transcript is sobering. The only reason Ellsberg did not receive a decade-long prison sentence is because the prosecution burglared into his doctor's offices, threatened people, installed eavesdropping devices for use when he was convening with his attorney, and ultimately the judge stated that he was unable to deliver anything amounting to justice under such circumstances and threw the whole case out of court.
But without that prosecutional misconduct at unprecedented levels, Ellsberg would have been fucked to hell and back.
And that's exactly what is in store for Snowden. The Espionage Act is not a tool for delivering justice but revenge. And Obama knows this as well as he knows that Ford pardoned Nixon and the Supreme Court gave his "all-ok" on it.
Fuck, Obama pardoned three people this year already that have not been formally accused.
He is just relying on being gone before the journalists have stocked up on the facts.
Of course Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:2, Flamebait)
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.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Nixon being pardoned by the guy he nominated to the vice-presidency before resigning is your benchmark here?
Here's the case you want to bring up: Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, which bears exactly on this case. Marc Rich had fled the country so as not to face an indictment. And it was technically legal to do so in that case, although it drew condemnation, even from Jimmy Carter.
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but Edward Snowden didn't donate a million dollars to Barack Obama's Presidential Library. If he won't pay, he can't expect to play.
The House passed 2 of 5 articles of impeachment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:5, Insightful)
And many people considered it to be a totally corrupt move by Ford. Just because some other a-hole did something and got away with it doesn't mean Obama should too.
Fair point, but not relevant here. The point is not whether Obama should pardon Snowden, it's whether he could. And the answer is yes.
Re: And Obama once again is a blatant liar (Score:3, Informative)
Bill Clinton pardened Marc Rich, who was a fugitive (and on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list at the time).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting side effect: No pardon for Hillary (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
but Rod Blagojevich can get one and HE may have (Score:2)
but Rod Blagojevich can get one and HE may have something on obama
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly would HRC get a pardon for?
Re:Interesting side effect: No pardon for Hillary (Score:5, Funny)
Watery risotto. Just wait, they'll be doing 7 congressional investigations into that recipe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the beauty of a blanket pardon. They don't even have to discuss all the things she did, she gets a pass on all of them.
IMHO the Clintons have some serious dirt on some big wigs in the RNC, or they would have been in deep shit 16 years ago. The only question: Has the expiration date on the RNC dirt passed?
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly can't believe it. On which grounds do you people see Obama granting a blanket pardon to HRC?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no universe in which Obama signs a preemptive blanket pardon for Clinton. There's simply no reason to.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you really bought into this campaign did you.
Re: (Score:3)
Pardon Hillary? For what? Starring in congressional feverish conspiracy theories? I'm confused. What actual crime has she actually committed that she's going to be prosecuted for?
Re:Interesting side effect: No pardon for Hillary (Score:4, Informative)
Is true [slashdot.org]
and it was illegal
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this modded down?
This is what I hate about the political correctness that anything against Clinton (or Obama) is kneejerked down by people who aren't even looking at what the post said.
I was coming here to say the exact same thing, this probably has more to do with Hillary than it does Snowden, through subtext, than it does Snowden outright. I am sure it applies to Snowden, but Obama may be sending a signal to Clinton that no pardon is coming.
AND if Clinton has done nothing wrong, what does she need
Re: (Score:3)
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.
That would be pretty savvy on his part if that's how it plays out. I never believed he'd pardon Snowden, and his statements in Germany were misleading at best, but a subtle signal to Hillary via this interview would be pretty genius.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the Obamas don't like the Clintons
Who, exactly, are the "Obamas"? Only one Obama has ever run for office. Who else with the last name of Obama are you fantasizing a run at office from?
and particular Hillary.
The Secretary of State is selected to present the president's agenda to foreign diplomats and dignitaries. If Obama didn't like Hillary, why on earth would he pick her as SoS? If he wanted to exert
s/can't/won't/ (Score:3)
procedures and practices, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]: 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.
Obama's bullshit answer (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obama's bullshit answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd also add, other whistle-blowers came forward before Snowden and found themselves the target of trumped up charges against them while the issues the whistle-blowers raised were swept under the rug.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not one of those points is accurate, but truth isn't what people are interested in here.
1. Snowden never attempted to go through proper channels.
From Wikipedia: In May 2014, U.S. officials released a single email that Snowden had written in April 2013 inquiring about legal authorities but said that they had found no other evidence that Snowden had expressed his concerns to someone in an oversight position. In June 2014, the NSA said it had not been able to find any records of Snowden raising internal comp
John Cleese had a more exact answer (Score:2)
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.
Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Prediction". It's literally there in the "Comment Subject:" field of your reply.
"He is a criminal" (Score:2)
Duh! Non-criminals need no pardon you morons.
Obama strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Remember his words (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
We need more persons like Snowden (Score:2)
Period.
Coward (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Commute Chelsea Manning's sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
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/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Commute Chelsea Manning's sentence (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Except (to my knowledge) Manning released zero top secret material. Whatever his/her motivations were, she effectively demonstrated that low level classifications are mainly used to prevent domestic and international outrage, not to counter legitimate security threats.
I happen to think that diplomacy will, in the long run, improve for the better if the ability of diplomats to lie and conceal is significantly disrupted. You are free to disagree, but lying about nature of the material released does not particularly help your cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does Chelsea Manning deserve a pardon?
Snowden leaked information about an illegal NSA program. He released the information to several high-class American newspapers in the hopes that they would filter it appropriately. What he released caused material changes to public policy. He may darn well deserve whistle-blower protection for that. Unfortunately, Snowden also leaked a bunch of stuff that was totally legal that the NSA did, just to shame them into paying attention to him. This leaves his status
Re: (Score:2)
Yes He Can (Score:5, Informative)
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.
This is Obama's way of telling Hilary she is...... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:its a lie (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."