Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government United States Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Obama Says He Can't Pardon Snowden

Comments Filter:
  • by Indy1 ( 99447 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:42PM (#53333241)

    President Ford pardoned Nixon for the watergate scandal, and Nixon never stepped inside a court for his misdeeds.

    • 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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:48PM (#53333301)

      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

    • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:49PM (#53333313) Journal

      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.

      • by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:57PM (#53333403)

        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.

        • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

          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.

        • by rhazz ( 2853871 )
          We're all quite sure many advisors told him it was unwise because the information would hurt his campaign. Trump lied by either explicitly or implicitly stating the audit was some kind of impediment to the release.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:01PM (#53333457) Journal

        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.

      • 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.

      • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @03:37PM (#53334227)

        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)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:52PM (#53333337)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:19PM (#53333601) Homepage Journal

        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.

    • by nightcats ( 1114677 ) <nightmeow&gmail,com> on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:53PM (#53333355) Homepage Journal
      Yes, he is. As Amy Goodman keeps reminding us: governments lie, politicians lie -- and the corporations that own them definitely lie. That's their business, it seems, so it must be the business of both professional journalists and private citizens to relentlessly expose the lies.
    • Edward Snowden doesn't need to be found guilty or anything of the sort for President Obama to pardon him. He has absolute authority as president in this matter. Edward Snowden is a criminal in the sense that he did disclose confidential information, which by definition is a crime. What we have to ask ourselves is wether the crime of disclosure is forgivable under the circumstance of disclosing another crime (invasion of privacy in this case, or violating the 4th amendment in terms of due process and unreaso
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:59PM (#53333427)

      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.

    • 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.

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:14PM (#53333561) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • against Richard Nixon. He was thereby charged with some form of "high crimes and misdemeanors". He resigned before a Senate trial could take place, but criminal charges could have grown out of the impeachment.
    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      I think that was just an expression, there are many high profile examples of pardons without proceeding through any kind of due process. Scooter Libby is maybe the most recent example. He probably meant "won't" - "I won't pardon someone who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves..."
    • by g01d4 ( 888748 )
      s/can't/don't want/ He didn't say legally can't so it can be read as preferentially can't and either way, he won't.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:42PM (#53333243)

    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 something on obama

    • What exactly would HRC get a pardon for?

      • by TroII ( 4484479 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:58PM (#53333413)

        Watery risotto. Just wait, they'll be doing 7 congressional investigations into that recipe.

      • 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?

        • I honestly can't believe it. On which grounds do you people see Obama granting a blanket pardon to HRC?

      • It will be a blanket pardon, not an itemized list (that would take way too long). It will stop Trump and the congress and the F.B.I. from going after her for all of her crimes. It will not list what those crimes were, is will simply allow Hilary to say she is above the law and untouchable.
        • There's no universe in which Obama signs a preemptive blanket pardon for Clinton. There's simply no reason to.

    • by RonVNX ( 55322 )

      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: (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

    • by nwf ( 25607 )

      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.

  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:45PM (#53333267) Homepage Journal
    The President can pardon whomever he wishes. Most recently, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before charges were even brought. There's plenty of writing on the subject [usconstitution.net] and it's a rather cut-and-dry issue.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:47PM (#53333287)

    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.

  • by nanospook ( 521118 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:50PM (#53333317)
    1. Snowden did attempt to go through proper channels. The big ignore..
    2. He had no whistleblower protections in place.
    3. If he had surrendered, he would have been subjected to torture and punishment without trial. FISA court..
    4. This is like the only thing that congress has agreed with Obama on in both terms.. That in itself should be a red flag..
    5. With guarantees for fairness, he would have faced a court. Couldn't get those guarantees.
    • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:59PM (#53333437) Homepage

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • 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)

    by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <mike@mikesmithforor e g o n . c om> on Monday November 21, 2016 @01:53PM (#53333353) Homepage
    Putin, as part of his promise to Donald Trump that he will not interfere in the internal affairs of the United States, will deport Snowden to the US within a year of Trump taking office.
  • Duh! Non-criminals need no pardon you morons.

  • Obama strawman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sacrilicious ( 316896 ) <qbgfynfu.opt@recursor.net> on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:12PM (#53333541) Homepage
    President Obama said:

    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.

  • 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.

  • Coward (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:21PM (#53333615) Journal
    Goddamn coward. This is a prime example of the anemia of the left right here. Obama used to stand against the abuses of the Patriot Act and mass surveillance and then you sold out completely--and some of that is due to the dirty realities in the world, yes I get that maybe closing Guantanamo wasn't going to be as simple as all that, but here he is in the closing weeks of your presidency and he can't even make a token effort to support the ideals he once claimed to hold. The perjurer Clapper walked free and will even keep his job right through the very end.

    And why are you doing it, Mr. President? Because your entire plan is to play meek and non-controversial, try to not rock the boat and give the Republicans more and more rope from which to hang themselves. That's been your strategy the whole time, and it's backfired almost every step of the way. Admittedly, you have slightly better chances hoping a Trump presidency with Republicans controlling senate and house, but... goddamn it man. If you wanted to have a nuanced view on the matter, you could have at least had Clapper arrested. Or fired.
  • by Fwipp ( 1473271 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @02:25PM (#53333653)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.
      • by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @04:22PM (#53334597) Journal

        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.

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      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

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Yes He Can (Score:5, Informative)

    by cstacy ( 534252 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @03:39PM (#53334235)

    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:

    Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

    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.

  • by anwyn ( 266338 ) on Monday November 21, 2016 @04:47PM (#53334807)
    This is Obama's way of telling Hillary she is under the bus.

    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.

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown

Working...