Edward Snowden makes 'moral' case for presidential pardon(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Edward Snowden makes 'moral' case for presidential pardon
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/13/edward-snowden-why-barack-obama-should-grant-me-a-pardon
171 comments
> Marc Rich [...] his crime doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary
One of the biggest US tax frauds ever, polluted and corrupted Zambia, fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution (just the tax thing of course), hired lobbyists, sponsored congress library and some politicians, pardoned by Bill Clinton. An example of class justice, corruption and other things wrong in the US, but as you said: nothing out of the ordinary...
I'm afraid Snowden did not make enough money to pay off the right people, like Rich did.
One of the biggest US tax frauds ever, polluted and corrupted Zambia, fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution (just the tax thing of course), hired lobbyists, sponsored congress library and some politicians, pardoned by Bill Clinton. An example of class justice, corruption and other things wrong in the US, but as you said: nothing out of the ordinary...
I'm afraid Snowden did not make enough money to pay off the right people, like Rich did.
Considering the Obama administration's actions towards whistle blowers, despite promising to be highly transparent, suggests Snowden will not be pardoned any time soon.
In his place, I'd only pardon Snowden and Manning after the election is decided.
I would imagine the only way that Obama would pardon those two after the election is if Trump won. Clinton will most likely continue the practice of coming down hard on whistle blowers. It would not help her administration in this regard if Obama pardoned people for the very things she wishes to crack down on.
If Trump wins then what difference does it make?
If Trump wins then what difference does it make?
>Pardoning some guy who smuggled some oil doesn't seem to have a purpose in regards to the state's role in society.
Unless the role of the elected officials of that state is to make sure they and their friends become obscenely rich, and have impunity even when they do illegal things.
Unless the role of the elected officials of that state is to make sure they and their friends become obscenely rich, and have impunity even when they do illegal things.
I think it would be better to say "obscenely become rich" rather than "become obscenely rich." I personally don't think there is anything obscene about being rich in and of itself.
at some point the level becomes obscene. that level may be obscenely high for you, but I assure you it is much lower for those that are poor.
What does the morality of my bank account have to do with yours? Why does a bank account have morality?
Big fat bank accounts let you control the action of other people: you buy some goodie or some service, someone works to provide it to you.
There is a point where having so much control over other people's lives can be considered a problem.
Now maybe it wouldn't be so bad if your own hard work indeed did produced that much value the world. But that's moot: virtually nobody gets rich by working —in practice, they got there by having other people work for them. That is, they accumulate the power of controlling other people's lives by controlling other people's lives in the first place.
Anarcho-capitalism is such an oxymoron.
There is a point where having so much control over other people's lives can be considered a problem.
Now maybe it wouldn't be so bad if your own hard work indeed did produced that much value the world. But that's moot: virtually nobody gets rich by working —in practice, they got there by having other people work for them. That is, they accumulate the power of controlling other people's lives by controlling other people's lives in the first place.
Anarcho-capitalism is such an oxymoron.
> Pardoning Snowden would be a comment on the surveillance state
Based on Obama's track record on privacy and surveillance I'm not sure what you think this comment would be.
Based on Obama's track record on privacy and surveillance I'm not sure what you think this comment would be.
I wonder how much practical difference it would make to pardon Snowden. It's likely not safe for him to return to the United States anyways.
> He was "the only [American] government official ever convicted for giving classified information to the press."
What about Jeffrey Sterling?
What about Jeffrey Sterling?
That quote is from an article published in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/03/opinion/abroad-at-home-the...
He might have been the only one at the time.
He might have been the only one at the time.
> state's role in society
You may have just blown Hayden's mind.
You may have just blown Hayden's mind.
Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon?
Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?
Or may a presidential pardon be reversed by any successor?
Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)
Hm. Off to Google I go; I find the concept somewhat intriguing.
Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?
Or may a presidential pardon be reversed by any successor?
Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)
Hm. Off to Google I go; I find the concept somewhat intriguing.
> Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon?
It is absolute.
> Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?
No, a pardon only affects criminal prosecutions and punishments -- to the extent covered by the text of the pardon, any future prosecution (or continuation of existing prosecution) is barred, and any criminal punishment (including and disabilities imposed by past conviction) is terminated. It doesn't affect any other action by the government, including any civil action that might be available in law.
> Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)
It can be as narrow or broad as the President chooses. About the only limit is that it is generally held (though this has never had occasion to be tested) that the Constitutional power of the pardon does not extend to prospective pardons (that is, a pardon cannot apply to offenses that occur after the pardon is issued.)
It is absolute.
> Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?
No, a pardon only affects criminal prosecutions and punishments -- to the extent covered by the text of the pardon, any future prosecution (or continuation of existing prosecution) is barred, and any criminal punishment (including and disabilities imposed by past conviction) is terminated. It doesn't affect any other action by the government, including any civil action that might be available in law.
> Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)
It can be as narrow or broad as the President chooses. About the only limit is that it is generally held (though this has never had occasion to be tested) that the Constitutional power of the pardon does not extend to prospective pardons (that is, a pardon cannot apply to offenses that occur after the pardon is issued.)
One more limitation: a Presidential pardon doesn't affect state laws. If, for instance, Snowden had committed some crime against the state that he was residing in, the President would not forgive it.
-Thank you; most educational (And exotic, seeing as we don't have anything like it around here - being a monarchy would be a lot more fun (and less democratic!) if the head of state held more power)
As things go, it can be argued that the King holds less privilege than his minions; suffrage does not extend to him, for instance. The job undeniably carries some perks, though.
Good thing presidential pardons does not extend to future crimes - that would be - ahem - interesting. Very much so.
As things go, it can be argued that the King holds less privilege than his minions; suffrage does not extend to him, for instance. The job undeniably carries some perks, though.
Good thing presidential pardons does not extend to future crimes - that would be - ahem - interesting. Very much so.
If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.
Yes, Snowden could be pardoned preemptively and expansively. That's how Ford pardoned Nixon.
No, a pardon could not be reversed by a future president (else: Ford could not truly have pardoned Nixon). There's SCOTUS precedent on both of these.
No, a pardon could not be reversed by a future president (else: Ford could not truly have pardoned Nixon). There's SCOTUS precedent on both of these.
For clarity:
When you say "preemptively", you mean in advance of trial or even indictment. So far as I'm aware, the President cannot issue a pardon in advance of the crime.
When you say "preemptively", you mean in advance of trial or even indictment. So far as I'm aware, the President cannot issue a pardon in advance of the crime.
It's incredibly powerful. The President can actually pardon entire classes of people. Carter issued a pardon to all draft dodgers. Ford had previously issued a limited pardon to some.
Obama could actually commute the sentences of everyone serving a sentence strictly for marijuana possession to time served.
Obama could actually commute the sentences of everyone serving a sentence strictly for marijuana possession to time served.
The only limit is that it doesn't apply to state crimes.
The President of the United States has the almost unqualified power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States, whether current or past, whether unindicted or convicted.
I came to comment that Snowden's request for pardon would presumably require a conviction, but on further research you're right that the president's pardon powers are "unlimited" -- even before legal proceedings have begun:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
lostboys67(1)
lb1lf: "how powerful is a presidential pardon?"
The president can pardon offenses of federal law. A state's governor can pardon offenses of that particular state's laws.
The president can pardon offenses of federal law. A state's governor can pardon offenses of that particular state's laws.
There's a Clancy novel built around the concept of a private spy agency with blank-check pardons for future actions from a President.
That idea also figured heavily in one of the Jack Bauer TV shows. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of lawyers over beers about it once. As far as anyone could tell, there's no precedent to suggest that that it would work, but none to say that it wouldn't work, either. If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. The sticky situation would be if you got an advance pardon and then did something really heinous, such that the President who gave the original blank-check pardon objected on the basis that the conduct wasn't meant to be covered. You'd be on thin ice then.
> If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere.
If the President is still in office, as head of the executive branch he can prevent prosecution even if there is no pardon, and, anyway, he could just issue a new and properly retrospective pardon. A pardon that's only good if the President that issued it is still in office and still agrees with it is exactly the same as no pardon at all.
The pardon power is only meaningful because it is binding on the federal government, and not just as long as the current President is in power, but forever (or, at least, until the Constitution is amended to change its status.)
AFAICT, the general consensus among those who study Constitutional law is that prospective pardons (those for crimes not yet committed when the pardon is issued) are nullities; for there to be a crime for a pardon or reprieve to apply to, it must have been committed (even if it has not been discovered) when the pardon is issued.
But because no prospective pardons have been issued and then their effect challenged in court, this has never been litigated, and there is no case law on the subject. (But if prospective pardons were possible, given the established breadth of the pardon power in other aspects, it would mean that the President could essentially prevent the US government from ever adopting -- or, rather, ever enforcing -- certain criminal laws that do not yet exist, simply by issuing prospective pardons for any offenses resulting from particular classes of conduct that he doesn't want to ever be criminalized.)
If the President is still in office, as head of the executive branch he can prevent prosecution even if there is no pardon, and, anyway, he could just issue a new and properly retrospective pardon. A pardon that's only good if the President that issued it is still in office and still agrees with it is exactly the same as no pardon at all.
The pardon power is only meaningful because it is binding on the federal government, and not just as long as the current President is in power, but forever (or, at least, until the Constitution is amended to change its status.)
AFAICT, the general consensus among those who study Constitutional law is that prospective pardons (those for crimes not yet committed when the pardon is issued) are nullities; for there to be a crime for a pardon or reprieve to apply to, it must have been committed (even if it has not been discovered) when the pardon is issued.
But because no prospective pardons have been issued and then their effect challenged in court, this has never been litigated, and there is no case law on the subject. (But if prospective pardons were possible, given the established breadth of the pardon power in other aspects, it would mean that the President could essentially prevent the US government from ever adopting -- or, rather, ever enforcing -- certain criminal laws that do not yet exist, simply by issuing prospective pardons for any offenses resulting from particular classes of conduct that he doesn't want to ever be criminalized.)
Clintons pardon of Marc Rich happened on his last day in office.
I seem to recall the Wikipedia article speculating on the checks and balances available if Marc Rich actually did return to the US
You should check that out
I seem to recall the Wikipedia article speculating on the checks and balances available if Marc Rich actually did return to the US
You should check that out
Most pardons happen on the last day of office. Also, there are 'pocket vetos' where the acting president either doesn't want to outright veto to alienate his party or wants to see the election results before making a final decision. Either way, the President ends up vetoing or signing controversial bills in their last few months in office.
I seem to recall there was a president that forgot to veto some bills and the next president signed them. I think there was even a Supreme Court case that held the laws as constitutional.
I seem to recall there was a president that forgot to veto some bills and the next president signed them. I think there was even a Supreme Court case that held the laws as constitutional.
Correction: a few controversial pardons happen on the last day of office. The majority of presidential pardons flow through the normal process where a person applies for the pardon, has their case reviewed by a team formed for this purpose. Obama stands out as one of the presidents who has issued the FEWEST pardons, although he says he may change that. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/obama-says-he...
President Obama could certainly pardon him without any qualifications. Which is not to say that some people in government wouldn't use their bureaucratic powers to harass him once he returns because they dislike what he did. For example, he might get the run-around when renewing his driver's license: "Oh, we need to see your prescription from your optician before we can put your eyeglass restriction on your license" (obviously not true but he won't get his license until he complies)
Which assumes someone at the DMV would be cooperative with another human. Slim chance of this
Reasons it would be in the interests of the US govt to pardon Snowden:
- It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.
- It would remove incentives for Snowden to constantly amplify inconsistent/ hypocritical behavior of the US govt.
- It would improve the optics for the tech industry for working more closely with government.
Reasons it would be against Us govt interests.
- It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad.
- It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.
- It would remove incentives for Snowden to constantly amplify inconsistent/ hypocritical behavior of the US govt.
- It would improve the optics for the tech industry for working more closely with government.
Reasons it would be against Us govt interests.
- It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad.
Each of these points is up for serious disagreement.
1. His celebrity could increase exponentially when he returned home and was available to do a press junket and book tour. He would appear on every morning talk show and radio show and then a tour of the campuses, libraries and malls of America. This idea is absurd on its face.
2. He had the resolve to make the initial release knowing he was destroying his life - it is clear this is a moral stance for him and the personal damage is done. If he came back to the U.S., expect him to be emboldened and wind up working for a lobby or a not for profit.
3. Lobbying dollars >> optics.
RE: US Government interests:
1. It would make the democrats look weak on terror and intelligence in the face of an upcoming and obscenely hotly contested election.
2. It would be bad for morale of our intelligence agencies - by no means a 'soft' consideration.
3. It would, in fact, set a precedent that whistleblowers will get pardoned.
This last point is the whole issue. Neither this administration, nor future administrations, is going to be particularly fond of intelligence whistleblowers. Financial and business whistleblowers is one thing - but in intelligence? That is another issue entirely. All politics aside, though we may, as citizens, want this to be precisely the case and hope that if we ever held political office we would feel the same way, it is just unlikely that this attitude is going to be found within the upper echelons of the intelligence or political community.
Unfortunately, the downsides are hugely substantial to those in power and the upsides are widely distributed among the general public. With a risk/reward-matrix like that, don't expect to see any pardons coming down for Snowden anytime soon.
1. His celebrity could increase exponentially when he returned home and was available to do a press junket and book tour. He would appear on every morning talk show and radio show and then a tour of the campuses, libraries and malls of America. This idea is absurd on its face.
2. He had the resolve to make the initial release knowing he was destroying his life - it is clear this is a moral stance for him and the personal damage is done. If he came back to the U.S., expect him to be emboldened and wind up working for a lobby or a not for profit.
3. Lobbying dollars >> optics.
RE: US Government interests:
1. It would make the democrats look weak on terror and intelligence in the face of an upcoming and obscenely hotly contested election.
2. It would be bad for morale of our intelligence agencies - by no means a 'soft' consideration.
3. It would, in fact, set a precedent that whistleblowers will get pardoned.
This last point is the whole issue. Neither this administration, nor future administrations, is going to be particularly fond of intelligence whistleblowers. Financial and business whistleblowers is one thing - but in intelligence? That is another issue entirely. All politics aside, though we may, as citizens, want this to be precisely the case and hope that if we ever held political office we would feel the same way, it is just unlikely that this attitude is going to be found within the upper echelons of the intelligence or political community.
Unfortunately, the downsides are hugely substantial to those in power and the upsides are widely distributed among the general public. With a risk/reward-matrix like that, don't expect to see any pardons coming down for Snowden anytime soon.
" It would, in fact, set a precedent that whistleblowers will get pardoned."
The assumption here is that Snowden is a 'whistle blower'.
Yes - in some instances, especially with respect to his release of information regarding domestic surveillance - he is.
But Snowden released a lot of information that has nothing to do with domestic surveillance, for instance, how the US spies on Russia. This is not 'whistle blowing'.
Someone tell me how releasing that information does not constitute a crime?
I agree that he should be pardoned for his 'whistle blowing' activities. But not for the other stuff.
The assumption here is that Snowden is a 'whistle blower'.
Yes - in some instances, especially with respect to his release of information regarding domestic surveillance - he is.
But Snowden released a lot of information that has nothing to do with domestic surveillance, for instance, how the US spies on Russia. This is not 'whistle blowing'.
Someone tell me how releasing that information does not constitute a crime?
I agree that he should be pardoned for his 'whistle blowing' activities. But not for the other stuff.
I like these counter arguments
slow clap
Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all. We ban accounts that continue to post this way.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's a little worrying that I should be concerned about the morale of TLAs who have been illegally drag-netting the entire world without repercussions.
The down-votes are absurd.
> This last point is the whole issue
Man, you guys are like scared little cretins, scared to leave site of the shore!
Man, you guys are like scared little cretins, scared to leave site of the shore!
> - It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.
I think it would be the opposite.
The longer the story drags on, the more people will forget it. Especially if he is cornered in Russia.
I'd be curious about Snowden writing a book about his late years at the NSA.
I think it would be the opposite.
The longer the story drags on, the more people will forget it. Especially if he is cornered in Russia.
I'd be curious about Snowden writing a book about his late years at the NSA.
It will be interesting to see the reception that Oliver Stone's film Snowden[0] will receive when released later this week. Anecdotally, most of my friends never seemed to care as much as I do and certainly care less now.
0: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/
0: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/
I'm more curious about Snowden's reaction to its accuracy.
I wonder if he was contacted by Oliver Stone, and what story he did tell, because from the trailer you can't really see anything really new.
I wonder if he was contacted by Oliver Stone, and what story he did tell, because from the trailer you can't really see anything really new.
It would weaken the incentives against leaking national-security information. Of course, that assumes one cares about national security; if one doesn't, then that's irrelevant.
Given that the U.S. — whatever its faults and flaws — is the only guarantor of international order, though, a weakened U.S. is sure to lead to more international conflict.
Given that the U.S. — whatever its faults and flaws — is the only guarantor of international order, though, a weakened U.S. is sure to lead to more international conflict.
The US govt has already weakened these incentives because of the decision not to prosecute Petraeus.
The US govt should not have strong incentives against revealing widespread human rights abuse like full-take surveillance of entire countries.
The US govt should not have strong incentives against revealing widespread human rights abuse like full-take surveillance of entire countries.
national security? guarantor of international order? Half of the world's conflicts are due to US intervention. Hell, we're giving weapons and training to both sides in some of them. Maybe we could use weaker "national security"...
I was predicting this from the "optics" of Snowden being a fake defector and feeding us precisely what the security establishment wanted the world to hear and know, whether the leak was truth or disinformation.
I maintain that the fake Snowden proposition is excellent news and should be seriously considered. It means they have run out of near realtime computation power and are drawning in data. :) If that is true, then
(a) Good news :)
and
(b) concentrate on getting secure comms for the 10%. (NSA does not care about dick pics and neither do those that engage in such activities.)
I maintain that the fake Snowden proposition is excellent news and should be seriously considered. It means they have run out of near realtime computation power and are drawning in data. :) If that is true, then
(a) Good news :)
and
(b) concentrate on getting secure comms for the 10%. (NSA does not care about dick pics and neither do those that engage in such activities.)
> It would improve the optics
Way off topic: is it just me, or did this particular usage of the faux-technical word "optics" spike this election cycle? To me, it reeks of punditry and/or snootiness (no offense) and rubs me the wrong way.
Way off topic: is it just me, or did this particular usage of the faux-technical word "optics" spike this election cycle? To me, it reeks of punditry and/or snootiness (no offense) and rubs me the wrong way.
They would be mad too at the mean man who took their secrets and didn't follow the rules. How dare he do that you know? What cause could possibly be greater than the intelligence community?
> It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad
these are people who literally hire death squads to get what they want. hurting their feelings has consequences.
these are people who literally hire death squads to get what they want. hurting their feelings has consequences.
>It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.
Why would Snowden retire from the rabble-rouser personality he's become? He's passionate about the issues and I can't see him ever stopping. I also imagine hes deeply indebted to Putin's regime and probably doesn't want to wake up with a forced Polonium tea breakfast if he doesn't continue his anti-US commentary, even post-pardon or post-Russia.
I really don't see any practical way for anyone to do anything with Snowden but leave him in the bed he's made. Snowden won't just go back to work like a nobody if he got this hypothetical pardon. I'd be surprised to see any precedent of someone who fled to foreign power and became an anti-US mouthpiece for a hostile regime suddenly getting pardoned for treason.
Downvote away, but the 'Snowden == Hero' mentality is not shared with most and the idea that this pardon would be no big deal is a bit naive. It would be incredibly polarizing and controversial to the US public.
Why would Snowden retire from the rabble-rouser personality he's become? He's passionate about the issues and I can't see him ever stopping. I also imagine hes deeply indebted to Putin's regime and probably doesn't want to wake up with a forced Polonium tea breakfast if he doesn't continue his anti-US commentary, even post-pardon or post-Russia.
I really don't see any practical way for anyone to do anything with Snowden but leave him in the bed he's made. Snowden won't just go back to work like a nobody if he got this hypothetical pardon. I'd be surprised to see any precedent of someone who fled to foreign power and became an anti-US mouthpiece for a hostile regime suddenly getting pardoned for treason.
Downvote away, but the 'Snowden == Hero' mentality is not shared with most and the idea that this pardon would be no big deal is a bit naive. It would be incredibly polarizing and controversial to the US public.
I really hope he'll be able to leave Russia one day but if I were him, I wouldn't return to the US. Too many people with weird ideas in their heads.
Not a trait confined to the United States by any stretch.
The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation/abduction/assassination (while also surveilling him) to make sure they get to keep sticking their finger in America's eye.
If he leaves the Eastern bloc you can bet that the boys in Fort Meade will make contingency plans to sabotage his brakes/get him on trumped-up charges for something else a la Assange/otherwise ruin his day.
If he leaves the Eastern bloc you can bet that the boys in Fort Meade will make contingency plans to sabotage his brakes/get him on trumped-up charges for something else a la Assange/otherwise ruin his day.
>The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation
that's a double edged sword; if the Russian leaders decide some day that they want to improve relations with the US by extraditing him then they might just do it.
that's a double edged sword; if the Russian leaders decide some day that they want to improve relations with the US by extraditing him then they might just do it.
That's true. I guess what the OP meant is that trait + being known in the US is what puts Snowden at greater risk in the US.
[deleted]
I admire Snowden's sacrifice, but the US can't pardon him. Doing so would signify weakness and encourage subversive behaviour. Traditionalist countries – China, Russia, Iran – are especially perceptive to status signaling. No doubt they would exploit the event to foster Anti-American sentiments. Also, we don't know the info Russian Intelligence got out of his asylum in Moscow.
Side note: I hope GMT Games releases an expansion for Twlight Struggle: 1989 ~ 2015. Despite the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has never stopped. I'd love to re-enact the past 25 years. Snowden flees to Moscow would be a Red Event, 2 ops: "US reveals their hand of cards this turn. Remove up to a total of 2 US Influence from one or more countries to Western Europe".
EDIT: to clarify, I do want the US to grant him pardon.
Side note: I hope GMT Games releases an expansion for Twlight Struggle: 1989 ~ 2015. Despite the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has never stopped. I'd love to re-enact the past 25 years. Snowden flees to Moscow would be a Red Event, 2 ops: "US reveals their hand of cards this turn. Remove up to a total of 2 US Influence from one or more countries to Western Europe".
EDIT: to clarify, I do want the US to grant him pardon.
This is so much letting other people or countries decide what you should do. The Land of the Free should make its own decisions, no matter what China or Russia finds.
In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means.
Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.
In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means.
Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.
[deleted]
> In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic
He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
Okay, I am not an expert, but I have read several UNSYMPATHETIC accounts of Snowdon's actions that specifically and categorically contradict what you say here when you assert that "He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns."
Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command and then attempted to go over it, so much so that there was a process begun to review his actions for discipline/reduced security clearance.
He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED, and, as widely acknowledged by those who should have had oversight (but did not effectively have it until post-Snowden) after his leaks, those concerns should havs been taken seriously by that review process, but were not.
Furthermore, you must understand this: the damage that Edward Snowden caused to the United States was no more and no less than desperately necessary chemotherapy, because the NSA had grown CANCEROUS, and I'm absolutely not convinced it has been cured totally, though I'd be happy to see information otherwise.
Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command and then attempted to go over it, so much so that there was a process begun to review his actions for discipline/reduced security clearance.
He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED, and, as widely acknowledged by those who should have had oversight (but did not effectively have it until post-Snowden) after his leaks, those concerns should havs been taken seriously by that review process, but were not.
Furthermore, you must understand this: the damage that Edward Snowden caused to the United States was no more and no less than desperately necessary chemotherapy, because the NSA had grown CANCEROUS, and I'm absolutely not convinced it has been cured totally, though I'd be happy to see information otherwise.
> Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command
Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal.
> He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED
No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.
Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal.
> He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED
No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.
> No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.
No, he exposed a federal crime being committed by the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper.
He exposed how the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper committed perjury (a federal crime in this instance) by lying to Congress and the American people about mass surveillance.
Is the counter argument that senior government officials should be allowed to lie to Congress about surveillance of American citizens?
And from wikipedia[1]: "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony."
Clapper changed his story a few times but eventually described this as something like "I forgot what we were talking about" but only after the perjury was exposed. Attorney General Eric Holder basically said he just forgot something and no charges necessary. One interpretation of this is as overt government corruption. It's relevant that Holder recently said he believes Snowden performed a public service.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper
No, he exposed a federal crime being committed by the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper.
He exposed how the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper committed perjury (a federal crime in this instance) by lying to Congress and the American people about mass surveillance.
Is the counter argument that senior government officials should be allowed to lie to Congress about surveillance of American citizens?
And from wikipedia[1]: "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a Congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony."
Clapper changed his story a few times but eventually described this as something like "I forgot what we were talking about" but only after the perjury was exposed. Attorney General Eric Holder basically said he just forgot something and no charges necessary. One interpretation of this is as overt government corruption. It's relevant that Holder recently said he believes Snowden performed a public service.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper
> Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional.
Untrue. And, in fact, his revelations were instrumental in leading to at least one of the cases in which those things were found to be illegal.
Untrue. And, in fact, his revelations were instrumental in leading to at least one of the cases in which those things were found to be illegal.
>Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things
Which is precisely why whether it was "legal", as defined by the NSA themselves, is irrelevant.
Which is precisely why whether it was "legal", as defined by the NSA themselves, is irrelevant.
Snowden deliberately looked at the outcomes of several whistleblowers before him, and concluded (rightly) that nothing would change.
Bill Binney and Thomas Drake were both NSA whistleblowers who tried to go through proper channels, including superiors and the Congressional intelligence committees. Drake was charged after showing illegal spying documents to a journalist, but they dropped the case, eventually, and he ended up working at an Apple store.
Binney never revealed sensitive documents, and as a result, he wasn't able to get anyone to investigate his criticisms. But in retaliation for speaking up to Congress, the NSA revoked his security clearance and railroaded him out of business.
Peyton Manning and Assange are also good non-NSA examples of how whistleblowers are actually treated.
Finally, Snowden did not flee to Russia. He went to Hong Kong because of its strange quasi-independent status, and was trapped in Russia en route to Central America.
Bill Binney and Thomas Drake were both NSA whistleblowers who tried to go through proper channels, including superiors and the Congressional intelligence committees. Drake was charged after showing illegal spying documents to a journalist, but they dropped the case, eventually, and he ended up working at an Apple store.
Binney never revealed sensitive documents, and as a result, he wasn't able to get anyone to investigate his criticisms. But in retaliation for speaking up to Congress, the NSA revoked his security clearance and railroaded him out of business.
Peyton Manning and Assange are also good non-NSA examples of how whistleblowers are actually treated.
Finally, Snowden did not flee to Russia. He went to Hong Kong because of its strange quasi-independent status, and was trapped in Russia en route to Central America.
You mean the "legal process" that other whistleblowers have come forward and said is useless and more interested in shooting messengers than righting wrongs?[1]
You mean the adversary state that is the only thing keeping Snowden from rotting in a military prison to never see the light of day again? How do you think that would have played out had he went somewhere "friendly" to the USA?
The "damage" that was done to the "national security" of the united states is more damage to the pride of those caught in illegal behavior than bona fide harm to America. It was a revealing to people that their government has been lying to them, loudly and repeatedly, something which is strictly positive.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-s...
You mean the adversary state that is the only thing keeping Snowden from rotting in a military prison to never see the light of day again? How do you think that would have played out had he went somewhere "friendly" to the USA?
The "damage" that was done to the "national security" of the united states is more damage to the pride of those caught in illegal behavior than bona fide harm to America. It was a revealing to people that their government has been lying to them, loudly and repeatedly, something which is strictly positive.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-s...
> He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
Unless you can point to a specific quantifiable thing that happened due to the information he had (because some people getting rightfully upset with their government's mass surveillance of its own people) I'd have trouble saying he caused any damage whatsoever.
And to the prior points, that's sort of what he'd need a pardon for, isn't it?
Unless you can point to a specific quantifiable thing that happened due to the information he had (because some people getting rightfully upset with their government's mass surveillance of its own people) I'd have trouble saying he caused any damage whatsoever.
And to the prior points, that's sort of what he'd need a pardon for, isn't it?
> He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
do you really believe that? prove it. what security incidents have occurred because of Snowden's revelations that would not have occurred otherwise?
do you really believe that? prove it. what security incidents have occurred because of Snowden's revelations that would not have occurred otherwise?
The legal process in this situation is broken to its core.
At some point I have to draw a line between the information that he leaked regarding questionable (and, ultimately, illegal) domestic US spying programs and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations. The former is undoubtedly potentially patriotic, while the latter is a legitimate and legal function of the NSA and likely damaged its intelligence mission on a number of fronts (and is, ultimately, treasonous).
I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world.
For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.
I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world.
For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.
You're missing a key point in how the spying was actually done: because the Five Eyes nations have tighter controls on domestic spying, they relied on each other to spy on each other's citizens and share the data through reciprocity. Plus, the NSA used the excuse of a single foreign party on a conversation to hoover up all communications just in case. This severely blurs the lines between domestic and foreign spying, and it would be difficult to reveal the details of domestic spying without also revealing how the GCHQ spies on Americans and the NSA spies on the British.
Also consider that Snowden did British citizens a favor by revealing how the GCHQ was ultimately spying on them, too.
Also consider that Snowden did British citizens a favor by revealing how the GCHQ was ultimately spying on them, too.
could he have leaked the former without the latter?
Seems like a logical, though not desirable, no. He didn't, and I would argue couldn't, have had the time. From the time he fled until his passport was revoked, was a pretty short amount of time. Additionally, had he been caught before releasing the data we would never know the name Snowden, or the abuses that occurred.
I would say that the time spent sifting through journalists to find someone who was trust worthy was better spent. That person would then have a shield around them which would protect them, even if Snowden was captured.
So basically, if had stopped to do that before releasing, then the likelihood that we would have ever seen any evidence, let alone the correct set of evidence, is very small.
Seems like a logical, though not desirable, no. He didn't, and I would argue couldn't, have had the time. From the time he fled until his passport was revoked, was a pretty short amount of time. Additionally, had he been caught before releasing the data we would never know the name Snowden, or the abuses that occurred.
I would say that the time spent sifting through journalists to find someone who was trust worthy was better spent. That person would then have a shield around them which would protect them, even if Snowden was captured.
So basically, if had stopped to do that before releasing, then the likelihood that we would have ever seen any evidence, let alone the correct set of evidence, is very small.
Undoubtedly and potentially are two adverbs you rarely see next to each other.
> and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations.
Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm.
EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?
Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm.
EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?
I think it's government propaganda. The only foreign espionage stuff I remember hearing about was this[1], which turned out to be a false flag leak[2] (!!!).
[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...
[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...
Downvote away, but this has come up repeatedly and no one has managed to provide a source. Meanwhile the fake incident I just linked is strong evidence that the government is willing to go to lengths to construct that narrative. It's been repeated so often that even Snowden supporters are starting to leave it unchallenged, but I think we're witnessing revisionism right here. In fact, as far as I can tell Greenwald et al have exercised considerable restraint in only publishing activities with bearing on domestic surveillance.
> Doing so would signify weakness
Maybe. Ideally it could be spun as a sort of "costly signalling".
> and encourage subversive behaviour.
Not any and all subversive behavior; subversive behavior of the form "I have deep ethical concerns about what is being done secretly here, so I am making it public." I want people feeling comfortable coming forward in that situation even if I ultimately disagree with their concerns. Threat of such is an important check on abuse of secrecy.
Maybe. Ideally it could be spun as a sort of "costly signalling".
> and encourage subversive behaviour.
Not any and all subversive behavior; subversive behavior of the form "I have deep ethical concerns about what is being done secretly here, so I am making it public." I want people feeling comfortable coming forward in that situation even if I ultimately disagree with their concerns. Threat of such is an important check on abuse of secrecy.
The proxy war might have never stopped, but what stopped was people taking Russia serious as _the_ second power on the globe. They lost that top spot.
His case should have been: "You pardoned many criminals that actually caused harm, I on the other hand, only caused awareness of the government's surveillance crimes"
He caused awareness of a lot more than that. If he just blew open the meta data bulk collection, I'd strongly support a pardon. But he disclosed much much more than that. Stuff that inarguably legal under US law.
What do you mean?
Why would Obama suddenly stop whistleblower persecution? It's the one thing he will be famous for. And you can't ruin a bad reputation.
He makes a good case for the pardon, but Obama won't give it.
Why?
Snowden doesn't have enough powerful forces in high places that will push for the pardon. If he has friends like Jonathan Jay Pollard has, chances are he'll get it, but he doesn't.
Why?
Snowden doesn't have enough powerful forces in high places that will push for the pardon. If he has friends like Jonathan Jay Pollard has, chances are he'll get it, but he doesn't.
Obama has granted pardons or clemency to well over 100 people while in office. He has directed the DOJ to fill the pipeline of clemency cases for him to review before he leaves office, with a focus on people sentenced under harsher guidelines that were revised while he was in office.
Obama won't pardon Snowden not because Snowden doesn't have the right friends. He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. Everyone can get behind pardoning someone sentenced to life for shoplifting under a three strikes law. Snowden is much more divisive.
Obama won't pardon Snowden not because Snowden doesn't have the right friends. He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. Everyone can get behind pardoning someone sentenced to life for shoplifting under a three strikes law. Snowden is much more divisive.
He cannot pardon him right now. That would be too controversial in the US, and it might reflect on Clinton. But after the elections, or in the last month of his presidency, he might do this without consequenses.
> He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move.
If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.
If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.
The bigger problem is that Snowden hasn't even been interrogated by the federal government, let alone tried, so it's difficult to really know what they'd be pardoning him for. Publishing the leaks is one thing, but if he's given access to foreign powers to information that has not been made public, that's another.
In the Marc Rich case, Clinton had a pretty good idea of what the upper bound of the crime being excused was. Also: he shouldn't have pardoned Rich, is I think the consensus at this point.
In the Marc Rich case, Clinton had a pretty good idea of what the upper bound of the crime being excused was. Also: he shouldn't have pardoned Rich, is I think the consensus at this point.
I don't think the first point is an obstacle. Pardons can be conditional and limited to a specific (alleged) offense.
Clinton later stated in public he regretted that decision and the damage it did to his legacy.
It is always amazing to me when politicians say they "regret" an action, or "take responsibility" for a vote (see Clinton's statements on Iraq since 2014).
What does it even mean, apart from lip service to those who disagree with their vote? Politicians don't hold personal responsibility for the fallout of their policies, so it is just rhetoric intended to neutralize your negative opinions of them.
What does it even mean, apart from lip service to those who disagree with their vote? Politicians don't hold personal responsibility for the fallout of their policies, so it is just rhetoric intended to neutralize your negative opinions of them.
> What does it even mean, apart from lip service to those who disagree with their vote?
Just what you suspect it does: nothing.
Just what you suspect it does: nothing.
Even if you think the apology was insincere and did nothing to ameliorate the harm of the pardon, at the very least the fact that Clinton was forced to apologize is evidence that, contrary to the assertion above, political reaction is "important in granting pardons."
Have you ever made a mistake? Did you apologize afterwards? Was that apology meaningful?
and it means exactly nothing, he knew damn well when signing who he is freeing. criminal was set free, paid a hefty sum/big favor to somebody and that is all that matters
Obama and Bill Clinton are the same person now?
He also may genuinely feel the guy is a criminal.
As opposed to the non-criminals who receive presidential pardons?
Presumably if the President decides to pardon someone, as opposed to commuting their sentence, it's indicative of a feeling that they shouldn't have been prosecuted or punished in the first place. So there's at least some reason to question whether they're really criminals or not, particularly if they haven't been tried and convicted of anything before receiving a pardon.
Commutation of sentences is actually much more common, particularly at the state level, because it doesn't really carry with it any indication that the person didn't commit a criminal act (and thus is less politically risky), only that the punishment was either too severe or that there's no reason to continue with it. I believe it also doesn't block further civil penalties or suits, although I'm not clear whether a Presidential pardon actually does (haven't ever seen any examples of that).
Commutation of sentences is actually much more common, particularly at the state level, because it doesn't really carry with it any indication that the person didn't commit a criminal act (and thus is less politically risky), only that the punishment was either too severe or that there's no reason to continue with it. I believe it also doesn't block further civil penalties or suits, although I'm not clear whether a Presidential pardon actually does (haven't ever seen any examples of that).
At the very least he should get a David Petraeus deal (who was trading classified information for sex).
> who was trading classified information for sex
That's really not how I read the scandal. A woman, who formerly had clearance for classified material, was engaged in an illicit affair. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that 1.) the classified information was ever leaked to someone without clearance, and 2.) that any actual trading occurred.
That's really not how I read the scandal. A woman, who formerly had clearance for classified material, was engaged in an illicit affair. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that 1.) the classified information was ever leaked to someone without clearance, and 2.) that any actual trading occurred.
Clearance is not a blanket authorization to access classified information- only information you require access to for your position.
Lapsed clearance is even less applicable, obviously.
Lapsed clearance is even less applicable, obviously.
The scale of what Petraeus did vs what Snowden did is very different.
Yeah, agreed! Snowden gave reporters a lot of information which was then released to the American people on the quite probably illegal activities of their "security" apparatus.
Petraeus had an affair with a reporter.
One of those things made it possible for Americans to know what their government was/is doing with great personal risk to the whistleblower. The other....didn't.
Petraeus had an affair with a reporter.
One of those things made it possible for Americans to know what their government was/is doing with great personal risk to the whistleblower. The other....didn't.
I don't think scale is written into the law.
While I can't speak to whether or not it is written into the law, there is historical precedent on the matter. Look up Clayton Lonetree for one where the scale was low. He was given a shorter sentence than is typical of espionage. Look up Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen for someone where the damage was estimated to be much greater.
He'll never get it. He lost any hope of whistle-blower status when he released information on foreign surveillance programs.
The government lost any hope of moral high-ground by performing illegal surveillance amongst many other things. It is not reasonable to expect Snowden to selectively only release information that was strictly illegal (due to sheer number of files to sort through) and it is reasonable for someone to whistle-blow through unofficial channels when official ones are not available (and they weren't despite many people trying to advocate that they were - save your breath).
Here's an idea - don't do horrifically illegal, amoral things alongside other legal but probably still amoral things, quash all possibilities of accountability, and expect that no one will call you out on it.
Snowden did the right thing, and the only thing that could have been done.
Here's an idea - don't do horrifically illegal, amoral things alongside other legal but probably still amoral things, quash all possibilities of accountability, and expect that no one will call you out on it.
Snowden did the right thing, and the only thing that could have been done.
No. Whistleblowing on illegal government actions is totally different from treason. The fact that part of the government did something illegal in no way justifies undermining national security goals if those two are not related.
Snowden clearly did not do the only thing that could have been done. He did release documents selectively, therefore he could have chosen to not release the foreign surveillance information.
All governments do bad things. That justifies whistleblowing. It never justifies an attack on the country's international security by its own citizens. In case you handn't noticed, other powerful states have no qualms about cyberwarefare.
Snowden clearly did not do the only thing that could have been done. He did release documents selectively, therefore he could have chosen to not release the foreign surveillance information.
All governments do bad things. That justifies whistleblowing. It never justifies an attack on the country's international security by its own citizens. In case you handn't noticed, other powerful states have no qualms about cyberwarefare.
>The fact that part of the government did something illegal in no way justifies undermining national security goals if those two are not related.
If a government does something illegal and actively works to prevent itself from being held accountable, it is justified in my opinion to make them accountable even at the cost of intangible inconvenience. You're operating under the assumption that a government should operate in secrecy, which in my opinion is bullshit - even for military and CIA activities, we should be transparent on non-granular scales. Obviously not releasing "hey we're going to mortar this coordinate at this time" but you probably get the idea.
>He did release documents selectively, therefore he could have chosen to not release the foreign surveillance information.
He released 200,000 documents. Millions of pages of information. I don't see how it can be argued he alone could have thoroughly vetted these documents to prevent unintentional leaks. And in his situation, I am sure he had to weigh the advantages of revealing illegal activities to the intangible and temporary inconvenience of only slightly less morally reprehensible spying programs.
>In case you handn't noticed, other powerful states have no qualms about cyberwarefare.
We shouldn't make our standards by comparing us to other countries. There are some pretty fucked up laws out there.
If a government does something illegal and actively works to prevent itself from being held accountable, it is justified in my opinion to make them accountable even at the cost of intangible inconvenience. You're operating under the assumption that a government should operate in secrecy, which in my opinion is bullshit - even for military and CIA activities, we should be transparent on non-granular scales. Obviously not releasing "hey we're going to mortar this coordinate at this time" but you probably get the idea.
>He did release documents selectively, therefore he could have chosen to not release the foreign surveillance information.
He released 200,000 documents. Millions of pages of information. I don't see how it can be argued he alone could have thoroughly vetted these documents to prevent unintentional leaks. And in his situation, I am sure he had to weigh the advantages of revealing illegal activities to the intangible and temporary inconvenience of only slightly less morally reprehensible spying programs.
>In case you handn't noticed, other powerful states have no qualms about cyberwarefare.
We shouldn't make our standards by comparing us to other countries. There are some pretty fucked up laws out there.
Thanks for clarifying.
Where we disagree is on your opinion that military and CIA activities should not be secret. Secrecy has been critical to maintaining strategic advantage in war and national security throughout history. Nothing has changed about that now. To suggest that we should blindly ignore this seems disconnected from the real world.
> We shouldn't make out standards by comparing us to other countries.
I can see how it might have looked as if that's what I was doing. I am not. To clarify - I don't think the illegal programs are justified at all, and Snowden was right to leak them. I do think the international intelligence programs are jusified. Not because we should do what others are doing, but because there are large and powerful countries who don't share ours interests and intend to undermine us.
Where we disagree is on your opinion that military and CIA activities should not be secret. Secrecy has been critical to maintaining strategic advantage in war and national security throughout history. Nothing has changed about that now. To suggest that we should blindly ignore this seems disconnected from the real world.
> We shouldn't make out standards by comparing us to other countries.
I can see how it might have looked as if that's what I was doing. I am not. To clarify - I don't think the illegal programs are justified at all, and Snowden was right to leak them. I do think the international intelligence programs are jusified. Not because we should do what others are doing, but because there are large and powerful countries who don't share ours interests and intend to undermine us.
That may be "right" or true, but the people in charge will never see it that way. Insert the quote about salary depending on misunderstanding it.
p.s. Always loved that song.
p.s. Always loved that song.
Snowden did the right thing - of this I have no doubt. But he also committed a crime - and depending on who you listen to it was either a grave one, or a slight justified one. Do I think his crime justifies 30 years in prison? no. I think the public good he did well offsets most of the harm - but I think he needs to go to jail for some amount of time, even if its only a day.
Saying something is illegal is not justification for it being amoral/wrong. There are countless obvious examples of this throughout history.
This is exact reason pardons exist. People do things that are illegal but not amoral when the system either doesn't account for it, the laws are not up to date to accurately reflect the consensus of a society, or the system is broken and acting outside the broken system was the best option.
Snowden doesn't deserve jail time due to the inefficiencies of our democracy. Inefficiencies that are largely due to our completely broken election system, as is obvious with the current presidential election.
This is exact reason pardons exist. People do things that are illegal but not amoral when the system either doesn't account for it, the laws are not up to date to accurately reflect the consensus of a society, or the system is broken and acting outside the broken system was the best option.
Snowden doesn't deserve jail time due to the inefficiencies of our democracy. Inefficiencies that are largely due to our completely broken election system, as is obvious with the current presidential election.
You must be one of those very "patriotic" Americans.
The man sacrificed his freedom so yours may last.
The man sacrificed his freedom so yours may last.
I think you might be jumping the gun on that conclusion. Grand parent may have been describing how things are, not how they think the world should be.
When did he do that?
My guess is, his flight from the US is going to prevent his pardon. A pardon was a long shot no matter what, but a preemptive pardon of a fugitive would be without historical precedent.
Carter's pardon for draft dodgers was preemptive pardon for hundreas of thousands of fugitives, many of them who left the country. 50,000 never returned even after pardon.
There has been some other preemptive pardons: pardons for Richard Nixon and Caspar Weinberger at least.
There has been some other preemptive pardons: pardons for Richard Nixon and Caspar Weinberger at least.
Preemptive pardons are definitely not without precedent.
The point was that preemptive pardons for fugitives is also not without precedent, as you claimed.
Neither Nixon nor Weinberger were fugitives. Also: see rest of thread.
My comment used Carter as the example of pardoning fugitives preemptively.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/proclamation-4483-granting-pa...
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/proclamation-4483-granting-pa...
Correct! It is fortunate then that the poster mentioned Carter's pardons.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton pardon a guy who ran to another country to avoid prosecution here (USA)?
Yeah, Mark Rich. Ok, not without precedent. (Mark Rich cooperated and was pardoned conditionally, for whatever that's worth).
Yes, Marc Rich.
That's not true, Bill Clintons pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive, on his last day in office is pretty spot on
And waaaay more questionable, but only questionable if you give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt still
And waaaay more questionable, but only questionable if you give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt still
[deleted]
Just out of curiosity – does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public?
I imagine that a hurdle to pardoning him would be that there is potentially content that would be too egregious not to charge him, which has yet to be released.
If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious :)
I imagine that a hurdle to pardoning him would be that there is potentially content that would be too egregious not to charge him, which has yet to be released.
If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious :)
> If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious
Its actually potentially quite simple, but impossible to answer without the actual text of the pardon. A pardon can be as simple or complex, and as broad or narrow as the President chooses to make it. It could, for instance, cover any offense that may have been committed by the recipient prior to the date of the pardon, in which case the answer is simple -- yes, Snowden would be immune.
Its actually potentially quite simple, but impossible to answer without the actual text of the pardon. A pardon can be as simple or complex, and as broad or narrow as the President chooses to make it. It could, for instance, cover any offense that may have been committed by the recipient prior to the date of the pardon, in which case the answer is simple -- yes, Snowden would be immune.
No, he would not be. Bill Clinton infamously pardoned fugitive Marc Rich who never did return to the US before his death because there was no guarantee he would not be prosecuted for something else.
Unfortunately, Snowden will never be able to safely return to the US.
Unfortunately, Snowden will never be able to safely return to the US.
> does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public
He has implied that he possesses such material, in great quantity. He is holding that possession up as deterrent against assassination, although if he received a pardon, presumably he wouldn't need that deterrent anymore?
Besides, I would think a deterrent such as I'm describing would be motivation for russians to assassinate him and make it look like americans did it.
He has implied that he possesses such material, in great quantity. He is holding that possession up as deterrent against assassination, although if he received a pardon, presumably he wouldn't need that deterrent anymore?
Besides, I would think a deterrent such as I'm describing would be motivation for russians to assassinate him and make it look like americans did it.
> He has implied that he possesses such material,
To the contrary, he has adamantly denied possessing any such material. I dont have the source, but in several video interviews he's said to protect himself from being apprehended by foreign intel agencies for a copy of the material, he simply doesnt have it. He's turned it all over to journalists.
To the contrary, he has adamantly denied possessing any such material. I dont have the source, but in several video interviews he's said to protect himself from being apprehended by foreign intel agencies for a copy of the material, he simply doesnt have it. He's turned it all over to journalists.
Pardon, I spoke imprecisely. But the effect is the same-
He does not possess the material, but he absolutely possesses the encryption keys to the material, and has distributed an encrypted version of a vast trove of material to many different persons, with a deadman switch.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/snowdens_dead...
He does not possess the material, but he absolutely possesses the encryption keys to the material, and has distributed an encrypted version of a vast trove of material to many different persons, with a deadman switch.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/snowdens_dead...
What is he looking at to his right? Did he receive the questions beforehand and is reading his speech from a paper?
Wouldn't he have to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned before he could be pardoned? I think what Snowden wants here is amnesty.
The problem lies with the assumption/argument of 'moral'.
The systems we live in are systemically corrupted by money (and/or power).
The systems we live in are systemically corrupted by money (and/or power).
I hope he gets it, but he'll probably have to donate $100 grand to the Clinton foundation like everyone else.
I hope it happens!
I wonder what his life would be like upon his return. I suspect his life would still be in danger.
I wonder what his life would be like upon his return. I suspect his life would still be in danger.
Am I missing something here? Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned?
> Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned?
You don't need to be convicted, or even charged, to be pardoned; a pardon doesn't even have to be specific as to the crime(s) it covers, it can just cover any crimes you may or may not have committed during some time specified time period before the pardon was issued (as was the case with Ford's pardon of Nixon.)
It is true that the usual clemency petition process operates after conviction, but that's a discretionary administrative process, it does not reflect the scope of the Constitutional pardon power.
You don't need to be convicted, or even charged, to be pardoned; a pardon doesn't even have to be specific as to the crime(s) it covers, it can just cover any crimes you may or may not have committed during some time specified time period before the pardon was issued (as was the case with Ford's pardon of Nixon.)
It is true that the usual clemency petition process operates after conviction, but that's a discretionary administrative process, it does not reflect the scope of the Constitutional pardon power.
Yes, you're missing something. Presidents can pardon before conviction, like when Ford pardoned Nixon.
Snowden blew any chance of this when he leaked tons of data about totally legitimate foreign intelligence activities, not just domestic spying. Regardless of whether you think leaking the domestic spying programs was justified, his leaks about our activities overseas are unforgivable.
As someone who lives overseas, I'll happily forgive him. I imagine I'm not alone in this.
His responsibility wasn't to your interests. If your interests conflict with America's interests, then yours lose out in the decisions that the United States makes. Just as if my interests as an American conflict with your government's interests, mine will lose out in their decisions.
Not everyone segments responsibility to only their own country. He did humanity a service. He certainly did not have a responsibility to intentionally withhold evidence of US surveillance in other countries. I believe he had a moral imperative to reveal that information.
When you have a government job and are entrusted with a security clearance, your country's interests must be your only concern. The people are entrusting you with their interests.
your country's interests must be your only concern
And his country's interests were his concern. What he had a problem with was his government's interests.
And his country's interests were his concern. What he had a problem with was his government's interests.
Nothing is unforgiveable. Not even failing to defend the country on 9-11.
totally legitimate
Nope.
Nope.
dhimes(1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Loring_Morison
Samuel Loring Morison (born October 30, 1944) is a former American intelligence professional, who was convicted of espionage and theft of government property in 1985, and pardoned in 2001. He was "the only [American] government official ever convicted for giving classified information to the press."
Seems pretty similar superficially. I wonder if he'll do it, Obama.
Also something quite odd is the number of pardons that seem a bit suspect. For instance Clinton pardoned his own brother. And Marc Rich. Think what you may of him (famous commodity trader, lots of shady deals rumoured), but his crime doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.
Pardoning Snowden would be a comment on the surveillance state, something worthwhile to talk about. Pardoning some guy who smuggled some oil doesn't seem to have a purpose in regards to the state's role in society.