Should the U.S. Pardon Edward Snowden? (reuters.com) 191
Long-time Slashdot readers 93 Escort Wagon and schwit1 both shared the news that U.S. President Trump is "considering" a pardon for Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who "leaked a trove of secret files in 2013 to news organizations that revealed vast domestic and international surveillance operations" carried out by the agency, according to Reuters:
U.S. authorities for years have wanted Snowden returned to the United States to face a criminal trial on espionage charges brought in 2013. Snowden fled the United States and was given asylum in Russia... Trump's softening stance toward Snowden represents a sharp reversal. Shortly after the leaks, Trump expressed hostility toward Snowden, calling him "a spy who should be executed..."
Some civil libertarians have praised Snowden for revealing the extraordinary scope of America's digital espionage operations including domestic spying programs that senior U.S. officials had publicly insisted did not exist. But such a move would horrify many in the U.S. intelligence community, some of whose most important secrets were exposed.
In 2015 a petition with 100,000 signatures was submitted to the U.S. government seeking a pardon. But then-president Obama's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism responded that "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it," also arguing that Mr. Snowden had failed to accept the consequences of his actions. "He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime."
In 2016, then-president Obama insisted "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves... 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." But the New York Times disagreed. "Snowden told The Washington Post that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the NSA, and that they took no action," the Times wrote in an editorial pushing for clemency.
Others pushing for a pardon include Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, the American Civil Liberties Union, one million people who eventually signed another petition which was submitted to the White House — and Edward Snowden.
Some civil libertarians have praised Snowden for revealing the extraordinary scope of America's digital espionage operations including domestic spying programs that senior U.S. officials had publicly insisted did not exist. But such a move would horrify many in the U.S. intelligence community, some of whose most important secrets were exposed.
In 2015 a petition with 100,000 signatures was submitted to the U.S. government seeking a pardon. But then-president Obama's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism responded that "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it," also arguing that Mr. Snowden had failed to accept the consequences of his actions. "He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime."
In 2016, then-president Obama insisted "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves... 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." But the New York Times disagreed. "Snowden told The Washington Post that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the NSA, and that they took no action," the Times wrote in an editorial pushing for clemency.
Others pushing for a pardon include Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, the American Civil Liberties Union, one million people who eventually signed another petition which was submitted to the White House — and Edward Snowden.
This is a distraction, a feint (Score:5, Interesting)
He took a swipe at the ruling class. If you're gonna hit the king, you better kill the king.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, of course your Subject is valid, but distractions and feints and lies are the only things Trump understands, so why wouldn't he pardon Snowden if he thinks he can make political hay against Biden? And don't forget the desperation. Trump needs to change the subject as many times as possible.
My own position is that Snowden is a whistleblower, perhaps even a hero, but the crimes were mostly big dick Cheney's and there's no way to hold Cheney to account. However privacy is already dead, so I'm not sure how
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Changing the subject is one of the alleged administration's aims. Another is to throw Hail Mary passes everywhere in the hopes that the cohorts of voters opposed to him will somehow magically come to believe he isn't walking sleaze. His big problem now is that he's offended so many groups he cannot favor one without screwing another. Example: his screwing up the USPS which the elderly rely upon more than most and will rely upon for voting. The current example is the alleged administration attempting to get
Re:This is a distraction, a feint (Score:5, Insightful)
... except that will piss off the rank and file Rs who believe he is a traitor ...
Except they also believe the state is constantly out to tyrannise and even kill them so they build a tactical wall loaded with guns into every room in their house. That makes it doubly amusing that they consider the guy who exposed the tyrannical machinations of the US surveillance state a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
(I wish I could see some rationale whereby Biden might pardon Snowden, but I'm completely dry on that well of inspiration. Ditto Harris, though she might be able to surprise me.)
I could see Harris doing it to appease Democrats, because she is all in on law-and-order and that would convince some of them that she is flexible. But I could also see her refusing to ever do it because she is all in on law-and-order, and that makes her attractive to "moderate" Republicans.
Public masturbation of 827432 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re: (Score:3)
It would be very interesting if Snowden was pardoned, to see whether he survived or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. But of course the answer to the question is, yes. Of course he should be pardoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a distraction, a feint (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the alleged president's poodle running the USPS has been removing mail sorting machines. This more or less had to be done due to the decrease in snail mail over the years due to the intertubes. However, the alleged president can now claim he's making the USPS more efficient and it is mere happenstance that it is occurring just before the election which will feature more mail in voting due to Covid. Remember, he destroys everything he touches.
Re: (Score:2)
That said I am STRONGLY against general mail in voting... absentee voting should continue with strong scrutiny as it always should have recieved. Funny acedotal thing, but 2 days ago census lady rolled up next to my apartment and was looking for people that have *definitely* not l
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone can go to their nearest starbucks for a latte they can go vote.
At Starbucks? That would be nice.
Funny thing about the States. They go out of their way to make voting more difficult, with registration, small number of voting booths, broken or rigged machinery, all sorts of convenient "incompetence" to screw up the process.
They are afraid of more people voting, because they might vote outside the two party system they have so carefully cultivated. Why take the chance? That's that way they see it..
Re: (Score:2)
If you are having a problem it is because there are too few voting locations per capita near your location.
Yes, conveniently so! Funny how that works. Voting locations should be everywhere, right next to the Coke machine. Should be as easy as buying a lottery ticket. Trump v. Biden? Just gimme the 'Quick Pick'... I kid, I kid... Kamala is acceptable
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a distraction, a feint (Score:5, Insightful)
The "adversaries" included US citizens with Constitutional protections which the NSA violated by the thousands and millions, and the international monitoring included treaty violations. Mr. Snowden should be protected as a whistleblower who exposed wholesale criminal activity by federal employees.
Pretty sure they said the same thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he betrayed the United States and materially weakened it by revealing tools and techniques they used to spy on adversaries. He should prosecuted and jailed.
It is not surprising he ran off to Russia to hide.
And there is your answer why the con artist is even considering a pardon. It helped his Russian handler. It's another one of the gifts for helping him get elected and even now working to make it a twofer.
Here's a question. Why is it the con artist has attacked and belittled our allies but has only p
Re: (Score:3)
If you are ever unsure whether something someone did was good, just replace their name with Batman and see if it still makes sense.
Batman discovered the US government is violating the privacy of its own citizens. Batman alerted those in charge of the problem but they did nothing. So Batman:
A. Ignored the issue
B. Alerted American citizens to the problem by making it public
C. Beat up those responsible and threatened them with unspeakable horrors should they ever try again
Now I don't know what Batman would've
Re: This is a distraction, a feint (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes even at the cost of confusing Trump himself.
He is always confused. There is another name for his word salad. Bullshit. It is not so much a conscious rhetorical strategy but a method of discourse that has allowed him to skate by without knowing shit his whole life.
Re: (Score:3)
There is another name for his word salad.
The word you're looking for is dementia.
Re: This is a distraction, a feint (Score:2)
It is impossible to know with Trump because he has always been so stupid. How do you measure cognitive decline when the baseline is so far below average?
The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
in the first place. The US used to provide asylum and protection to many a defector from a number of Communist countries, who exposed their systems of domestic spying and illegal foreign operations.
Snowden did the same thing, why should he be treated differently?
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden did the same thing, why should he be treated differently?
Eh? He was treated exactly the same. He has asylum in Russia.
And a good thing for Snowden that he never made it to South America. Russia is the one place the US would not dare assassinate him.
Re:The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Funny)
That'd be "the same treatment" if the US were some shithole totalitarian dictatorship, not a blooming democracy and the Leader of the Free World.
Re:The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:4, Informative)
That'd be "the same treatment" if the US were some shithole totalitarian dictatorship, not a blooming democracy and the Leader of the Free World.
... led by the most divinely handsome big handed stable genius deal master in the known universe.
If you are going to suck up to the US you had better not forget to heap copious quantities of sycophantic praise on their dear leader.
Re:The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
For a Freischutz, you sure miss by a lot.
That is true, I am really bad at this kind of mindless sycophancy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. However, if you are going to crack jokes abut Trump, and your comment has been modded +2 100% funny, leaving out his venal egotistical character and rank stupidity is kind of missing half the joke. Or were you perhaps being serious when you called the US: "a blooming democracy and the Leader of the Free World"? In that case being modded +2 100% funny must really sting. It's getting rather hard to tell the difference between poor simpletons who genuinely think the US still is: "a blooming democracy and the Leader of the Free World", and the comedians who are cracking sarcastic jokes about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not cracking jokes about the Donald, but about his kingdom, sorry. You can't crack jokes about the Donald, he is the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not cracking jokes about the Donald, but about his kingdom, sorry. You can't crack jokes about the Donald, he is the joke.
A king and his kingdom are inseparable, the latter is a reflection of the former. If a king is a joke, so is the kingdom.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be "the same treatment" if the US were some shithole totalitarian dictatorship, not a blooming democracy and the Leader of the Free World.
What other nation has somewhere like Guantanamo Bay the US has where they seize people from other nations half way across the globe and incarcerate them with no evidence, no rights, no trial not even a kangaroo court?
Re: (Score:3)
What other nation has somewhere like Guantanamo Bay
You mean like Saudi Arabia? Israel? Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
in the first place. The US used to provide asylum and protection to many a defector from a number of Communist countries, who exposed their systems of domestic spying and illegal foreign operations.
Snowden did the same thing, why should he be treated differently?
Because they were offering up information that would help the US to take action against communist nations and the USSR in the middle of the Cold War? Do you think they'd have been offered asylum and protection had they had nothing to offer? If you don't see how that is different to a US citizen giving up US state secrets which can be used by a foreign power against the US then I don't know what to say.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't see how that is different to a US citizen giving up US state secrets which can be used by a foreign power against the US then I don't know what to say.
Snowden did not give up US state secrets that could be used by a foreign power, he gave the US citizens knowledge about violations of their basic rights by a government they trusted. He should have gotten an even better treatment than many a Cold War dissident tool, whose role was at most a pawn in the propaganda game.
Re:The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a crucial element you're forgetting:
No, there are no "crucial elements" that I'm "forgetting" - the official rationale to protect the dissidents during the Cold War was to uncover "the truth" about "government abuse of power".
Because the US is not supposed to treat dissenters like dictatorships do.
LOL, but the whistleblowers are treated in the US exactly in the manner the "dictatorships" treat them - with threats, persecution and, when possible, a special court system and severe punishments.
Re:The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course whistelblowers face severe punishmnent. But in a true democracy, they have a chance to get a fair hearing in a public court and argue a case that whatever they did wasn't treason, but denouncing illegal acts for the greater good of the country.
Snowden fled the country because he was 100% sure he would not get that chance in the US. Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
In a true democracy I guess the secret services would forcibly have a degree of transparency towards the citizens so Snowden would not have had to make that choice. Snowden leaked because the secret services we no longer representing the citizen in a fundamental way: that of the constitution.
Of course the degree of transparency depends on your interpretation of true democracy. if secret services are kept a tiny bit accountable by some oversight organ, and this organ itself is kept a tiny bit accountable to
Re: (Score:2)
Of course whistelblowers face severe punishmnent. But in a true democracy, they have a chance to get a fair hearing in a public court and argue a case that whatever they did wasn't treason, but denouncing illegal acts for the greater good of the country.
Snowden has no chance to get a fair hearing in a public court and argue a case that whatever he did wan't treason. The statute under which he's been charged specifically disallows any public interest argument.
I take it that you, therefore, don't consider the US to be a true democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget assassinations..
Re: The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
He's damaged the security of the US and risked the lives of people working for it.
This is your opinion, not a fact. Actually, it is exactly the opposite, he's improved the security of the US at least by making known a trove of exploitable bugs and denying the opportunity of state and private actors to abuse them and harm the US government and businesses.
Furthermore, the US government doesn't want to encourage others.
FTFY. As someone already pointed out upthread, there is a slight difference between the two.
The very act of providing asylum to people in need made the American people feel good about themselves and helped reinforce belief in what the US was doing.
Why were they "feeling good"? If you read the justifications for such actions, it was because the US felt the work of the dissidents against the totalitarian menace helped the world as a whole. Are you saying your parents and grandparents were just lying?
He's benefited countries like China and Russia more than he's benefited the US.
[citation needed], without some actual evidence, this is just a talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
This is your opinion, not a fact. Actually, it is exactly the opposite, he's improved the security of the US at least by making known a trove of exploitable bugs and denying the opportunity of state and private actors to abuse them and harm the US government and businesses.
You do know it's not possible to instantly fix those bugs and there was a period between them being released and being fixed where they were able to be exploited by nations such as China and Russia?
Re: The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
Except he didn't disclose the bugs. Just the tools, policies and processes of the spying that were occuring because lettered agencies had weaponised those bugs.
Sounds like you are mixing up the Vault leaks with Snowdens leaks.
Re: The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
''He's benefited countries like China and Russia more than he's benefited the US.''
By no means. His motivation for disclosing PRISM was make public blatantly unconstitutional behavior of a government organization. Warrantless domestic recording or ''spying'' of private communication is a direct violation of the basis of law that made this country the most successful in history. The fact that foreign intelligence systems may have benefited is collateral damage, unfortunate but it doesn't change the necessity for the disclosure in the first place.
The minute we allow any governmental agency to act ''above the law'' without checks, balances, and on the domestic side WARRANTS, might as well just burn the constitution.
The disclosure of PRISM has made us significantly more secure. And seriously do you honestly think that foreign intelligence systems weren't quite aware of our abilities before his release of documents, I highly doubt it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, the real question is should Snowden pardon the USA for treating him like a criminal for the most patriitic thing that he has done - reveal the illegal government behaviour?
Re: The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that foreign intelligence systems may have benefited is collateral damage, unfortunate but it doesn't change the necessity for the disclosure in the first place.
Not only that, but he tried to report the illegal behavior through the official channels [washingtonpost.com] and was denied. So he tried to do it in a way that wouldn't benefit our enemies. The only way left to disclose the information to The People was to disclose it to everyone. It's our government's failing, not Snowden's.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that foreign intelligence systems may have benefited is collateral damage, unfortunate but it doesn't change the necessity for the disclosure in the first place.
Not only that, but he tried to report the illegal behavior through the official channels [washingtonpost.com] and was denied. So he tried to do it in a way that wouldn't benefit our enemies. The only way left to disclose the information to The People was to disclose it to everyone.
And even then, he didn't just dump it to Wikileaks, he disclosed to to responsible journalists who attempted to carefully avoid disclosing information that would be harmful to US national security.
Re: The US should not have accused Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't diminish the conflicting requirements. Snowden had multiple allegiances, and the one which mattered most was the oath to the constitution. That one compelled him to become a whistleblower. It is quite possible in theory that such an act damages general foreign policies but it should not be argued. Damage to foreign policy goals should be considered an acceptable cost (maybe within certain bounds). The main damage is generally loss of face: he damaged the reputation of the US by exposing the fiction of its moral superiority. The reason the CIA finally decided to go all out against Assange was the same: they lost face in 2017. They required revenge whatever the cost. That includes total disregard for the cost to the US in general.
Snowden himself limited possible damage by following the first channel available outside his organisation: journalists. Their task was to judge what information should really be released and withhold what has no direct justification to be released. He would likely release the absolute minimum but he considered his responsibility to stop there: whatever they decided , he had no veto. Most of what Snowden passed on to journalists has never been released (95%).
Snowden acted as responsibly and with as much restraint as he could. Journalists should have a different logic. They represent the people. Well they should, but usually they also represent the state and the interests of the powerful. Greenwald shares Snowden's sense of restraint about releasing information but he encountered an awful lot of resistance from the Guardian who always had different reasons for not releasing stuff. Usually it came down to their self interest: can this cause us trouble in some way.
Assange has a different opinion: there should be a strong shift towards more exposure of secrets, even if it comes at a cost. The benefit is a rebalancing of power between the citizens and the government, or the other main powers. In practice he would do a lot to scrub information from releases in order to limit this damage but this was not on principle. He considered it a 'pragmatic delay' in releasing information to limit collateral damage. In the end the information belonged to the public: He got a bad name that he was callous about releasing info but that is based on lies. But you can disagree about how much information one should release in the public interest.
So you can imagine a kind of spectrum
- those for whom loyalty to the organization trumps everything(almost everyone who works in the security services)
- those where the loyalty stops when the constitution is endangered
- those who have limited public interests in mind when releasing information but will go very far in avoiding damage
- those who have far reaching public interests in mind and put a low threshold on releasing
- those who will release damaging information for their own benefit.
The CIA happens to operate on both ends of the spectrum. Some journalists would too, just because they have mainly their own interests in mind
Re: (Score:3)
He's benefited countries like China and Russia more than he's benefited the US.
it would have benefited the us a great deal more if what he did had sparked a honest and deep discussion about us agencies violating civil rights with little accountability. us democracy could have benefited greatly from it. sadly, there was none just because, as you say ... "that's a different discussion". it's just all about the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
What Snowden did was expose that the system to protect us was corrupt AF and broken, with secret courts and secret laws.
If you remember in the immediate aftermath we were all warned of the 'Heartbleed' bug - in reality NSA encryption backdoors.
At the very least, we received a new set of backdoors - that gave at least a little breathing room (but still utterly stupid policy) until the hackers manage to get their hands on that information.
Snowden forced a reexamination of utter bullshit that would have remain
Re: (Score:2)
What Master, I no use Master, I use MIR Platinum card, like your president.
He needs something to offer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If he can deliver an October Surprise, he'll get his pardon.
IMHO the pardon would be an adequate October Surprise all by itself.
Not to mention that, once pardoned, he could come back here and talk his head off. I can think of nothing more likely to convince people of the existence of a "Deep State" than exposing more of the historic shenanigans of the spook community.
After all, if you're, say, a retired (or still employed) CIA expert, with training and a career in covertly subverting social institutions of
Re: He needs something to offer (Score:5, Insightful)
The promise is merely enticement for the gullible. He'll offer it after the election, so as to get more votes from the Libertarians.
Do I think Snowden did the right thing and should be pardoned? Yes. But Trump doesn't care about the right thing or the country. Trump cares about Trump.
Re:He needs something to offer (Score:4, Interesting)
If he can deliver an October Surprise, he'll get his pardon.
The only reason Trump would pardon Snowden is if her thinks it will help him win the election; he doesn't give a shit about Snowden or any of the issues surrounding him. Personally, I think pardoning Snowden would hurt Trump with his base and leave him open to accusations of 'hating the military" and pardoning "spies who sold secrets that resulted in dead soldiers,,," and weaken his "law and order" stance. Much of his base barely knows who Snowden, beyond he stole secrets and fled to Russia. For all his faults, Trump is very media savvy and knows he'd have a hard time changing the message if he pardoned Snowden.
If he could come up with a deal with Snowden that would hurt Biden he'd do it, but Snowden faces a paradox: if He releases information that might be useful he loses whatever leverage he has for a pardon, and Trump can trumpet the revelations while forgetting the pardon part. If he pardons Snowden first, he faces blowback from his base and Snowden, no longer facing criminal charges, no longer needs to help Trump if he doesn't want to and would probably need to factor in his supporters response if he was seen as helping Trump win reelection.
Trump would be more likely to cut a deal with Putin to kick out Snowden and then brag about bringing a traitor to justice. If Putin wants to help Trump, and views Snowden more useful to further his goals by turning him over to the US than by keeping him in Russia he'd kick him out in a heartbeat.
Putin is a spy (Score:3)
Putin never stopped thinking like a Russian spy. It should be clear that Snowden doing well undermines authoritarian spycraft. It's an example for future spies.
Same as the mob. Putin illegally kills "traitors" decades later when they find them hiding anywhere on earth. Putin hates Snowdens but he views this as his enemy's enemy is his friend. Putin wants Snowden to succeed publicly.
Re: (Score:2)
This should be easy for Trump (Score:2)
Trump has long held the belief that his campaign was illegally spied upon by those in power prior to his taking office.
Given that Snowden was trying to bring attention to the fact that such things were taking place on a massive scale, it puzzles me why this would be a tough decision for Mr. Trump at all. Without the revelations that Snowden bestowed upon us, such discussions would still be the stuff of conspiracy theorists.
( Don't give the me " He should have taken it through the proper channels / chain of
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has long held the belief that his campaign was illegally spied upon by those in power prior to his taking office.
Given that Snowden was trying to bring attention to the fact that such things were taking place on a massive scale, it puzzles me why this would be a tough decision for Mr. Trump at all. .
He is probably well aware someone would Willy Horton him and that would hurt him with some off his base.
Re: (Score:3)
( Don't give the me " He should have taken it through the proper channels / chain of command " bullshit either. When the entire intelligence community is engaging in illegal activity, the protests of a single person who threaten the status-quo are easily buried. ( metaphorically and / or literally ) )
He did take it through (to) the proper channels. Over ten times. They didn't want it. He was left with two choices, either continue to help break the law, or announce that our government was breaking the law. He chose the one that benefited The People at great personal cost to himself. He is a hero to anyone who believes in freedom from oppressive governments, and only those who love fascism see him as a villain.
and it also explains Trump's APPARENT flip-flop (Score:3)
Trump's statement that was so hostile to Snowden was before the election when CITIZEN Trump heard what we all heard about this young man leaking info damaging to American national security.
Trump's more recent statement is from a Trump who has endured a 4+ year long avalanche of dishonesty and propaganda by the very people in the intelligence agencies that Snowden exposed. The very CIA and FBI and DOJ officials who were supposed to be protecting the rights of American citizens were spying on citizen Trump an
Pardon without conviction?! (Score:2)
How the hell can you pardon someone without convicting them first? There is no double-jeopardy without a trial.
Re:Pardon without conviction?! (Score:4, Informative)
How the hell can you pardon someone without convicting them first? There is no double-jeopardy without a trial.
A pardon completely absolves the individual of the crime and lets him go free. Ford pardoned Nixon "... for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president" before any trial took place.
On the other hand, the President can choose instead to commute (reduce) a sentence only after a guilty verdict, leaving the conviction itself in place.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell can you pardon someone without convicting them first? There is no double-jeopardy without a trial.
That's how the law is interpreted. You can't commute without a prosecution, but you can pardon before a trial. there's records of this happening.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't commute without a prosecution, but you can pardon before a trial. there's records of this happening.
. . . like, with the pardon of Richard Nixon . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
That was a major factor costing Gerald Ford the election.
Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Should the German state have pardoned Martin Niemoller [wikipedia.org] in 1938? Of course they should have, but... Germany... 1938...
Snowden shouldn't have to be "pardoned", because he shouldn't have had to flee the country in the first place, because what he did was utterly patriotic and worthy of a medal *in a democratic country* - which of course the US isn't, and hasn't been for many decades.
Case in point: the exact same thing happened to Daniel Esllsberg [wikipedia.org] back in 1971. That's 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noting: Ellsberg was never acquitted or pardoned—the case was thrown out due to tampering from the Nixon administration—so it’s still an open question of whether this sort of whistleblowing is legally justified. Morally? Most certainly, but the legal question remains open.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has never been "a democratic country". It's only ever been partly democratic. And initially, it wasn't democratic at all. It was deliberately oligarchic. You had to be a white male landowner to have a vote. Now you have to be a corporation.
Re: Analogy (Score:2)
Ellsberg was a traitor. Vietnam was a justified proxy war against Russia.
Re:Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
> pardoned because ultimately every democracy in the world still has rules about treason.
Oh, please. The Constitution defines Treason. Disclosing illegal secret programs isn't one of them.
"Making war upon the Several States" is one of the few criteria. Did they try Lincoln? No, obviously. It's part of the reason why Lincoln's strategy was cited in Mein Kampf as the way forward for Germany.
Snowden blew the whistle on FISA abuse and now Durham is unsealing indictments over FISA abuse. Let's see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in a Democracy based on the Common Law such as America, he should get a fair trial, including his chance to present his side to a jury, who them decide whether he is actually guilty or whether to nullify.
Yes (Score:2)
If you disagree for absolutely any reason, or even "agree" but run interference about it because Trump is talking about it, this is one of a very few things you could do by itself that makes me want you out of my country to a homcidally violent degree.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you, except the pardon is still necessary because of how bad the laws are. The law only bases guilt around whether or not he leaked information, it doesn't take into account whether it was right to do that or not. In a better world he wouldn't need the pardon, but in ours he does.
What would a pardon accomplish? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why assassinate him? Why murder escaped war criminals after World War II, or why execute anyone who's been convicted? As a warning to others, or so that people don't pay more attention to them, or both.
Re: (Score:3)
Intelligence agencies love to "send messages." The NSA has a fundamental problem that many of the people they want to employ have "nerdy backgrounds and see the importance of such things." They also tend to be young and liberal. Putting the fear-of-sudden-death-no-matter-where-you-run into them is a time-honoured tradition.
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Degrade his security rating to minus 10 million or something, have him pay a token fee of a few thousand bucks for some bureaucratic reason anyone can come up with and have an independent US NGO ask him if he would like to lead a US citizens board for controlling the three-letter agencies and observe their machinations vis-a-vis the innocent US common citizen.
If I were POTUS I would've done this years ago.
Bring him back and let him be the honorable US citizen he is.
He *is* a hero and the US should be mature enough to honor his deeds for the american people.
Well, yes, duh? He's a national hero! (Score:2)
A correct use of the term "hero"... as opposed to the usual case, where it is used for people paid to invade foreign countries and murder random people without trial based on vage accusations /totally/ unlike the behavior the accused are accused... --.--
Just fishing for compliments (Score:2)
Trump has no strategy and no foreign policy. How could he? He doesn't really understand foreign affairs and doesn't know about most of the countries in the world, and he doesn't listen to his advisors.
He's motivated mostly by narcissism, and since he barely knows what he's doing, he just fishes in the dark and meddling around, powered by wishful thinking to make something great, truly great happen. This isn't the first time he makes a 180 degree turn because he senses an opportunity to make headlines.
Maybe
This will never be about Snowden (Score:2)
The reason is both simple and has nothing to do with Edward Snowden:-
If the President were to pardon him, or commute any sentence he may be given if tried and convicted, then this sends a subliminal message to other, potential future leakers that they too might be pardoned if the go public with material that is clearly in the public interest.
It would cripple the US Intellige
Pardon before Trial? (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s not how it works. Snowden has not been tried and convicted...even in absentia.
Pardons are for convictions.
What Trump is doing is saying that the Feds will look the other way and ignore the law.
Under this administration, that is par for the course.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no requirement for a conviction in order to receive a pardon. Perhaps the most famous example of this is when President Ford pardoned Nixon for his crimes. This occurred before there was a conviction, heck charges had not even been filled when Nixon was pardoned.
Not Just a Pardon (Score:2)
Snowden should receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Liar and traitor (Score:2)
According to all public accounts, Snowden stole large amounts of information that had nothing to do with questionable U.S. intelligence orgs' activities against U.S. citizens. I read claims in the press that he claimed that he didn't give any of that other info to China or Russia. A total lie, I believe. Russia didn't grant Snowden asylum for free. Snowden had to earn it. He had nothing to trade except all the information that he stole.
Trump would prove his critics right if he were to pardon Snowden's crimi
Unequivocally, yes (Score:2)
Reality Winner (Score:2)
Reality Winner deserves a pardon far more than Edward Snowdon
Re: (Score:3)
Putin may be tired of him
Has he been staying at Putin's house this whole time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who wants to hold the US security services accountable wants a trail.
It's spelled T R I A L.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely Putin realizes a pardon would screwup the American electorate even further. And Putin's poodle will oblige lest all those deals his poodle had/has with Russian oligarchs controlled by Putin somehow become visible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Putin, Putin, Putin.
Is anyone actually falling for this ridiculous sock puppet Narrative?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Would I trust every IT/security worker to expose what Snowden did? Nope.
Glad he went above and beyond the allegiance to those who held the purse-strings and was allegiant to something a bit larger? Damned right.
Re:A question of whether you value state secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is to protect a country, a lot of nasty things go on behind the scenes.
The reality is that if the government doesn't respect the law, the law is not respected by anyone of consequence.
If countries seriously tried to play the white knight they would very likely end up like Snowden, without a home and career because that's the reality of how things work if you consider everyone.
The truth is that if you're sitting on top of the world like America has been for decades, you can act in an accountable fashion, because you are the big swinging dick. But by acting like hypocrites, we've squandered international goodwill, which threatens our position atop the ziggurat.
Re:A question of whether you value state secrets (Score:4, Insightful)
This opinion is the difference between a rule of law democracy and putting "democratic" in your country's name because it plays well with the serfs. Unfortunately your post seems to accurately describe the US, at least post-WWII.
YES, because Putin thinks so (Score:2)
The whole system is entirely against it merely on the grounds that it would encourage others to take their oath seriously which is not to the current elite establishment.
The EXACT same reasoning is held by Putin who ran part of their CIA (and should think similarly) but with the motive of destroying the west like he was patriotically doing as a spy master.
Our system wants to make an example that is worse than death to deter others. Like wikileaks....which even had the plan leaked before they did it. But Put
Re: (Score:2)
The rule of law has always been inconvenient to those who think they're above it. That's why it's so important.
Re: (Score:2)