President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden Before Leaving Office (theverge.com) 383
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Verge: Ever since Edward Snowden set in motion the most powerful public act of whistleblowing in U.S. history, he has been living in exile in Russia from the United States. An article in this week's New York Magazine looks at how Snowden may have a narrow window of opportunity where President Obama could pardon him before he leaves office. Presumably, once he leaves office, the chances of Snowden being pardoned by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are miniscule. Obama has said nothing in the past few years to suggest he's interested in pardoning Snowden. Not only would it contradict his national security policy, but it will severely alienate the intelligence community for many years to come. With that said, anyone who values a free and secure internet believes pardoning Snowden would be the right thing to do. The Verge reports: "[Snowden] faces charges under the Espionage Act, which makes no distinction between delivering classified files to journalists and delivering the same files to a foreign power. For the first 80 years of its life, it was used almost entirely to prosecute spies. The president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all president before him combined. His Justice Department has vastly expanded the scope of the law, turning it from a weapon against the nation's enemies to one that's pointed against its own citizens. The result will be less scrutiny of the nation's most powerful agencies, and fewer forces to keep them in check. With Snowden's push for clemency, the president has a chance to complicate that legacy and begin to undo it. It's the last chance we'll have."
like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It would be pointless anyway since President Trump will soon unpardon him and send the bill for the used office supplies to Scotland.
Re:You can't pardon someone who isn't convicted (Score:5, Informative)
You can't pardon someone who isn't convicted
I keep seeing this. It doesn't appear to be true. [wikipedia.org]
See Nixon (Score:3)
He was never tried or convicted, but was pardoned by President Ford. You only need to have the _potential_ to be convicted of a crime to be pardoned. As with Nixon, the President could claim that it would be in the best interests of the country. (Don't misread "could", I chose it intentionally.)
I have no idea why people invent fairy tales when historical facts are readily available.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that ES won't be pardoned.. By this administration or the next...
Now granting a pardon for Hillary? I'm pretty sure he won't do that because it's a no win situation for him.
In order for a pardon to be a net gain for anybody here, Hillary will have to be charged. Where I believe she's committed a number of felonies with this E-mail thing, she's NOT getting charged as long as Obama is in the White House, no way no how. It's technically possible she gets charged, but that only puts Obama in a tough
Re: (Score:3)
Now granting a pardon for Hillary? I'm pretty sure he won't do that because ...
...there's nothing to pardon. She hasn't actually broken any laws. If she had, that would actually have been inconvenient for her opponents, because real lawbreaking requires annoying things like speedy trials. However, pretend lawbreaking, ethically shaky behavior if you squint and hold your head juuuust right, deaths of friends that can be twisted to look "suspicious", that crap can be made up and touted endlessly. If there's nothing real to it, that's actual way better because you can keep harping on the
Re: (Score:3)
Two points;
1. The tagline on the post I was responding too WAS about Hillary so my response was on topic as much as the original post.
2. Hillary has not yet held the office of president and is but the presumptive nominee of the democratic party, so she is just a private citizen like you and me and not exempt from criminal prosecution. Where I seriously doubt she will be charged, it's still possible she could.
AND, one last thing, a president is only really exempted from criminal prosecution while actually
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you're correct, do you really want someone running the United States who is guilty of "Poor Judgement" on a basic security issue, then refusing to accept the advice of those more skilled in that field? That's your bar for excellence? Swift boat was stupid at the time, and I said so. Birth certificate, ditto. I actually view the email scandal as serious.
PS: this post in no way advocates for a Trump Presidency.
Re: like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is why do they even have the power to arbitrarily circumvent the law at all.
It's a power granted to the President by the United States Constitution. How does the exercising of this power represent the "circumventing" of the law when our most supreme law specifically grants him this power?
If you don't think he should have that power, well, that's an argument, but removing it from him is no simple task. Personally, I would question the wisdom of such an attempt, as would many others.....
Re: (Score:3)
How does the exercising of this power represent the "circumventing" of the law when our most supreme law specifically grants him this power?
It violates a basic principle of modern democracy, the separation of powers - Legislative, Executive, and Judicial .
In the US, the president inherited the power of Veto and Pardon from the King. Royal pardon in the UK is now very rarely used. It would go against the Rule of Law.
Re: like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:4, Informative)
It can't go against the "Rule of Law" when he is expressly granted that power by our most supreme law. There is no law in the United States that trumps the Federal Constitution. That document gives him the power to pardon Federal offenses. It does not -- as people erroneously believe -- give him the power to pardon State offenses. He could give Snowden a full pardon but Snowden could just as easily find himself charged on the State level for any number of crimes.
The American separation of powers doesn't work the way you seem to think it does either. The Executive is responsible for initiating criminal prosecutions and it has some discretion in how it exercises this power. It's true that in other countries -- Civil Law jurisdictions -- an Independent Judiciary both brings charges, prosecutes, and adjudicates them, but that's not how it works here. The Executive brings charges and prosecutes them before the Judiciary which adjudicates.
Re: like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:4, Informative)
the midst egregious being Ford pardoning Nixon
Was what Nixon did really so bad by today's standards? The NSA does worse things before breakfast.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We have someone running for (and leading) president who did worse than what Nixon resigned over.
The two party scam is really fucking America at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
We have someone running for (and leading) president who did worse than what Nixon resigned over.
Just the one?
Re: Today's standards (Score:5, Funny)
"When I was a young man, they told me if I voted for Goldwater, I'd get sent to Vietnam. I voted for Goldwater and sure enough, I got sent to Vietnam."
Re: (Score:3)
Three of the most egregious political scandals in modern history happened under republican presidents. Nixon saw more scandals than you've seen pornhub videos. Reagan had some truly terrible ones - Iran Contra was nothing short of committing high treason against the united states and he only escaped the death penalty by virtue of a willing fallguy (Oliver North). Shrub got your Afghanistan and Iraq which is an ongoing travesty that has cost well over 6 trillion dollars so far (almost half the entire US debt
Re: (Score:3)
Why call out Clinton? Every president does this, the midst egregious being Ford pardoning Nixon. The real question is why do they even have the power to arbitrarily circumvent the law at all.
I would argue that pardoning Nixon was a very courageous act; one that probably cost him the election. The US did not need to go through the divisiveness of trial after RMN left office; it would have further divided the US for no real purpose. Resigning cost Nixon more than any conviction would; Tricky Dicky had to give up the one thing he sought his entire life.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama has already pardoned more people than any president in history. He's been pardoning non-violent drug offenders for most of his last term, several dozen every month. Something that is LONG overdue and he'll barely make a dent in number of prisoners that should have their sentences commuted or pardoned.
Re:like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:4, Funny)
Are these the guys who have already served the maximum prison term allowed by the revised laws that you're talking about?
What's really pathetic about that particular bunch of pardons is that he won't consider it for someone who has served for less than 10 years. So there are people who have been in prison for nine years for a crime that as of last year has a three year maximum sentence that Obama won't pardon....
Pardon me for not being impressed by his pardons.
Re: like Clinton, he'll pardon a lot of people (Score:3)
Obama is a globalist - no pardon for Snowden (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama is a globalist. Being a globalist is about control. Specifically information control.
Snowden messed with the new world order. He will not be pardoned by Obama.
Snowden? (Score:5, Funny)
He'll have to pardon Hillary first
Re: (Score:3)
There is zero reason for Obama to pardon either and a whole bunch of reasons not too.. Neither will get pardoned..
Now, Rob Emanuel, he's more likely to get a pardon for his actions as Mayor of Chicago than these two, and what does he need a pardon for?
Why is Obama more like to pardon? (Score:3)
Presumably, once he leaves office, the chances of Snowden being pardoned by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are miniscule.
And what makes the chances of Snowden being pardoned by Obama non-miniscule?
Re: Why is Obama more like to pardon? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't grasp why people think that Obama wants to pardon Snowden in any fashion.
Because it's the right thing to do and this is his best opportunity to do it with the fewest repercussions?
And the argument about pissing off the TLA's, maybe they cold follow the spirit (and letter) of the law in the first place!
They made their bed, they should be made to lie in it.
Re:Why is Obama more like to pardon? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that Obama's said Snowden should be in jail should be a clue.
This will get down moded for saying it but Snowden betrayed the country by providing critical foreign intelligence to the nations we were spying on. Had his revelations stopped at only those engaged in legal/illegal spying on US citizens I would consider him a total hero, but because he assisted foreign nations in blocking legitimate spying, and for that he should be jail. He put no filters on the information he provided the press and he did real harm to our international spying efforts. He exposed programs and technologies that provided real foreign intelligence and were no threat to American citizens.
Snowden is a hero and a criminal and he should serve time in prison for what he did. Though his revelations about spying on american's shouldn't be punished his other revelations should be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Pardon him for his breach of the espionage act, but leave him on the hook for everything else.
I think that would go a long way to appeasing the "pardon him" crowd. Might even get him to show up and front court, who knows.
Re:Why is Obama more like to pardon? (Score:4, Insightful)
He exposed programs and technologies that provided real foreign intelligence and were no threat to American citizens.
That's because he doesn't view himself as an American citizen. He is on the record as saying that he's a "Citizen of the World," whatever that means. I rather liked Robert Gates [pbs.org] assessment of him, "He said the government has built an institution of oversight over intelligence-gathering for the past 40 years, and there are avenues for people to pursue with the authorities if they believe a law has been broken. Gates said for Snowden to make public his allegations instead “is an extraordinary act of hubris.”
Hubris indeed; a 29 year old decided that he knew better than the hundreds of elected officials that we the people appointed to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf. Nobody elected him or entrusted him with this sort of power, he just took it for himself. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media outlet that takes pains to scrub information that would endanger lives. Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences.
Then, the final insult, he runs away to a country that stands diametrically opposed to every human right he claims to champion. This happens AFTER he makes himself the story, by outing himself, rather than at least trying to remain anonymous, as Deep Throat did. It speaks to a personality that craves the affirmation of the public spotlight, which brings me back to Secretary Gates' comment about hubris.
I love how Manning's detractors never mention... (Score:3)
" Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media"
First, wikileaks isn't a media company. Second, two of those "reputable" (LOL) news sources that you speak of, including the Washington Post, ignored Manning when he contacted them--which is why he went to Wikileaks. Funny how one little detail like this fells a house of cards, which is in this case your babble about Manning being motivated by "hubris". Hubris! Same old argument,
Re: (Score:3)
Whoops, sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed I was seeing talk of Manning because of many details including this:
Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences. ..which is totally not true, and is much more often (wrongfully) attributed to Manning for the fact of Wikileaks' releasing a large volume. "Snowden's media buddies"--you mean, "journalists"? Media buddies would be an apt term if they were actually associated with any large medi
Re:Why is Obama more like to pardon? (Score:5, Informative)
He reported the problems to his superiors and was ignored. Are you suggesting he should go to a governor or a congressman? Like "hello, I'm a NSA analyst and I'd like to chat with you about NSA illegally spying on everyone in US. When and where would that suit you?"
So he should have leaked only something? Greenwald is an American and they met in New York.
There isn't a wide range of countries to choose from. He chose the country that respected his rights. Which, sadly, is not US.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't run away to Russia. He was in transit when the US revoked his passport. The media outlets who ran with Snowden's releases did scrub them. Your arguments are based on someone's perception of the facts, not the facts themselves. It's rather sad to see you condemning someone based on nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Hubris indeed; a 29 year old decided that he knew better than the hundreds of elected officials that we the people appointed to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf.
He took an oath to defend the United States against enemies domestic and foreign. When you judge the enemy to be the organization you are part of, and have already tried reporting the problems with barely an acknowledgement, and what is happening is clearly illegal... You must act or acknowledge your own cowardice.
Just to be clear, what the NSA and GCHQ are doing is illegal. The UK government is still trying to make it legal with new laws, and had to obstruct the official investigation to ensure no-one was
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe Snowden doesn't deserve to get off scot free, but do you believe he should be locked in a cage until he dies of old age? Because that's what is slated for him. In the Federal system, judges decide the penalty and that's what he'd get. There is no parole. The fact that he revealed a number of blatantly illegal actions by his superiors as well as a number of secret programs the general public does not support and would have never voted for - is not a defense his attorneys are permitted to argue in c
Should? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That is a terrible idea. The world isn't ready to know about the alien reptile people. Couldn't you have used something else as your example? Hopefully no one takes your post seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
He should also fix that $200 red light camera ticket that someone who wasn't me got when he (or she) was driving a car that looked just like mine through the intersection of Ashland and Diversey.
Whyever would he do that? (Score:2)
Hillary won't pardon him if she wins, probably. Same reason.
Trump might. Just to spite Obama. Or not, because I doubt he gives a crap about Snowden (he's old news).
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a compromise stance O could take, such as limiting any sentence to 2 years max or the like?
Could pardon felony, not misdemeanor. Won't though (Score:5, Interesting)
The president could pardon someone for "any federal felonies committed" but not misdemeanors. Then Snowden could be convicted of one or more misdemeanor charges like "improper handling of public records" or whatever misdemeanor charge is appropriate.
However, as TFS said:
The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all presidents before him COMBINED.
Obama pardoning Snowden is about as likely as Bill Clinton being a virgin.
What about Hillary Clinton? The Clintons have been in office or running for office most of their adult lives, since 1977. Most of her career, Bill was the public face of the the team, the actual office holder, while Hillary's role was PR, whitewashing negative information, from small issues of character to major scandals. For example, she assembled and led the teams trying to discredit women like Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones, trying to persuade the public that those events never happened and the women were liars. Her career has been all about HIDING the affairs of government officials. A whistle blower like Snowden, someone who puts the truth on public display, is her enemy, a total low-life from her perspective.
Why 0 would he do that (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump is an evil vindictive bastard (Score:5, Insightful)
No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I'm sure he's sorry they confessed. What other apology does he need to make? They confessed, and Trump had nothing to do with that or with convicting them or setting the sentence. Should he feel sorry that he thought the murder/rape of a jogger in a public park merited the death penalty?
If you scratch an ardent Trump supporter, you find a hater.
You don't even need to scratch the surface of the Trump haters to find a hater.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump had nothing to do with that or with convicting them or setting the sentence.
... He ran his advertisement on May 1st, 1989. The trials and convictions happened in August and December 1990.
Hillary is an evil vindictive bastard (Score:3, Informative)
I think everyone will agree that Trump loves money. A lot. Even Trump's most ardent supporters.
Did you know that Trump spent about $80,000 to run an ad in favor of the death penalty for the kids who confessed to the rape and murder of the Central Park jogger in 1989?
Funny thing about that story. They were innocent and their confessions were coerced lies. The REAL rapist was identified more than 10 years later and the kids (grown into prison-hardened adults) were released. No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I had originally thought that Hillary had only the one issue (E-mail scandal), but it turns out she's got a whole rack of skeletons [gazette.com] in her closet.
If particular note, she made (what she called) a "shameless pitch" to Russia on behalf of Boeing. Russia made a multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing, and Boing then put $900,000 into the Clinton foundation.
Or giving the OK for a uranium deal [washingtonexaminer.com] to a close friend, after which the same close friend put $2.35 million into the Clinton foundation.
Trump has a history of g
Re:Only question for a Hillary supporter: (Score:2)
Who do you hate most?
Same question can be made of a Hillary supporter.
And a Sanders supporter.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are lying, but what else do you expect from a Trump supporter?
Perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion if you can start with a single truth: Who do you hate most?
If you want to start a meaningful conversation, how about you stop name-calling and tell us something about Hillary that is
a) Backed up by a reference, and
b) Encourages the reader to vote *for* her?
It's easy to call someone names. It's much *much* harder to have an actual... you know... meaningful discussion.
Until then, I'll just assume you're just another shallow-thinking name-caller.
I win (Score:2)
If that's your idea of a meaningful discussion, then...
I win.
Re: (Score:2)
Beat me to it?
Yes, it's obviously true, but is that the best strategy? I'm trying to remember what the Art of War said about understanding your enemy... While I definitely tend to regard hateful people as enemies, I really do not understand them...
Re: (Score:2)
No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
It's worse than that... he actually doubled down on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am most mystified by why he did such a thing. It doesn't seem to be any of his business, and it was long before he could make political hay from it. He loves money, but he loves authority and extreme punishment at least $80,000 more than he loves money?
In the context of this discussion, it seems extremely unlikely that such a person would be issuing many pardons except to his co-conspirators, and in that context it would make excellent sense to discourage them from testifying against him.
Hmm...
Re:Whyever would he do that? (Score:4, Informative)
> Trump might. Just to spite Obama. Or not, because I doubt he gives a crap about Snowden (he's old news).
Honestly, what are the chances that Trump even understands what Snowden and Manning are about?
Does he have an ounce of integrity to his being? Does he have any comprehension of right and wrong? His racist brain-spasming and the fact that he got rich from inheriting his dad's fortune and multiplied it through ponzi schemes leads me to believe that the man is a nihilistic narcissist.
Re:Whyever would he do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in the building trades and he was very well liked by both union men (which I was) and professional men (which I became). He was competent and audacious and built really interesting projects
Do not take this as me being a Donald Trump supporter for his presidential run. Again I'm a #NeverTrump. But don't build strawmen either. It doesn't help.
Re: (Score:3)
Does [Trump] have an ounce of integrity to his being? Does he have any comprehension of right and wrong? His racist brain-spasming and the fact that he got rich from inheriting his dad's fortune and multiplied it through ponzi schemes leads me to believe that the man is a nihilistic narcissist.
You might be interested in some of Hillary's less publicized dealings here (The dirty two dozen: Clinton's top controversies ) [washingtonexaminer.com] and here (Top 10 Clinton conflicts of interest) [gazette.com].
Would you care to comment on Hillary's integrity, given the links provided?
Fair point (Score:2)
That's actually a fair point.
In the future, if you were to wrap that in a sentence or two with the link as one of the words, and drop the childish name calling, you'd probably get voted up.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you attributing a vanity motive to the actions of his administration?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
No he Shouldn't (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No he Shouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The article quotes Snowden, "Name one whistleblower from the intelligence community whose disclosures led to real change - overturning laws, ending policies - who didn't face retaliation as a result. The protections just aren't there"
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively, there were no protections for whistle-blowers. The choices were to keep quiet, publish and leave the country, or publish and get sentenced for a long time in prison. What I don't like his his publication of information on the NSA spying abroad, which is precisely what I want it to do. If he had only published information on the NSA's spying in the US, I'd be much happier about him.
Pardon him? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pardon him? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of what you or I think, he broke the law ... sometimes that's the right thing to do and I think he deserves praise, not punishment, but a pardon would prevent him from being prosecuted for those violations. A medal would not, and you never know who will be in office next.
Re: (Score:2)
A 'pardon' suggests that you've done something wrong but are being let of lightly because we are just that nice.
No, a pardon suggests you've done something illegal but nothing wrong.
Illegality is a very, very, poor indicator of wrongness.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure Obama is bad but he doesn't deserve that.
I mean he already got the Nobel Peace Prize for doing fuck all.
Not a realistic possibility (Score:5, Insightful)
President Obama is many things, but on his list of top personal identities, I don't see any identity that would pardon Edward Snowden. I think he's a good man, and even a good president under the circumstances, but it ain't going to happen.
Just to clarify my analysis, let me pick the personal identity of "politician". I happen to think it might be Obama's #1 identity, but it's certainly near the top of his list. Pardoning Snowden would be extremely bad as a political move and would give enormous fuel and enthusiasm to his political enemies.
The best candidate to pardon Snowden would probably be a philosopher who was primarily concerned about right and wrong, and you better not hold your breath waiting for one to become president. I actually think that Obama has a philosophical streak, but not in his top 10 identities. His identity as a lawyer is certainly higher, and professional lawyers are trained to ignore such trivialities as right and wrong.
On the third hand, I also blame the big dick Cheney, both for creating the personal-privacy-abusing national security apparatus that Obama has to deal with (in his persona as a realist) and for stuffing the entire civil service with ideologues. That may be the worst legacy of Dubya's miserable failure of an administration. The federal civil service was supposed to be task-oriented and apolitical, an organization of professionals who would competently and impartially administer whatever legislation the political process threw at them, and even ignoring political pressures from the executive branch. Not so under Cheney and his cronies, who actively worked to drive out competent careerists and carefully screened the personal politics of all new hires. Of course the punchline is that the so-called Republican Party now blames Obama for being unable to fix the system they worked so hard to break and keep broken.
Pardoning Snowden? You'd be better off hoping they decided corporations are inhuman monstrosities hiding under the legal fiction of decency.
Pardon him of what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Many pardons come before trial or arrest (Score:2)
Very often pardons come before someone is charged with a crime. At the Constitutional convention and in the Federalist papers, two reasons for early pardon were mentioned. It can be used as immunity for a witness. For example pardoning Hillary's email admin would allow him to testify regarding what Hillary asked him to do. That end can be achieved by the prosecutor's office promising not to prosecute as well. Second, for national reconciliation. Lincoln pardoned the confederates at the end of the Civil W
Re: (Score:2)
Johnson pardoned the draft dodgers of Vietnam
Wasn't that Carter?
Yes of course, thanks (Score:2)
Thanks. I wasn't paying attention to which president since it didn't matter to my point.
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon didn't stand trial either, but he was pardoned.
Constant confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an endless discussion about everything but the real issue:
Our freedom is being completely destroyed along with the hope that we will ever get it back.
Our future is being threatened. Our lives are at risk.
Not unless ES grew up in the Middle East (Score:2)
No way.
Explain something to me (Score:2, Insightful)
I am confused. I thought that, to be pardoned, you have to have been found guilty of, or pleaded guilty to, something in a court of law.
He has been charged, but there has been no trial, in absentia or otherwise. So how can he even legally be pardoned?
Obama should ask for pardon. (Score:2, Informative)
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way. Because if there's one thing Brits absolutely love, it's being pushed around by foreigners, which, duh, was the whole fucking point of the question.
Really, if I was some head of state, I'd be like "That's a matter for the people of X". At the very strongest, if pushed, I'd say "Well, personally, I'd prefer..." or "If I was one of them, I'd probably choose...". I
Pardon for what? (Score:2)
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way.
This makes the tacit assumption that leaving the EU was a bad decision.
The [brexit vote] demographics show that a large percentage of people with a degree voted to leave (43% leave versus 57% remain), so you can't say with certainty that staying was the smart thing to do.
The critics are particularly vocal, but not everyone thinks it was a bad move.
Re: (Score:3)
Not going to happen (Score:2, Funny)
Espionage Act Meets The Digital Age (Score:2)
TL:DR, Ed will not be pardoned, as an object example to a potentially very leaky age.
Per TFA: For the first 80 years of its life, it was used almost entirely to prosecute spies. The president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all president before him combined. His Justice Department has vastly expanded the scope of the law.
There's a good reason for this. The digitization of most current technical, planning, organizational, and intelligence information means that it can be dis
Interesting thing about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
People say he did it out of conviction or stayed true to his principles. Well, so does a suicide bomber.
But here's the difference: The suicide bomber is expecting a reward - 72 virgins or some other heavenly reward. Snowden knew he would throw away his life but he didn't do it for a personal reward. He did it for others, for his country.
I haven't made up my mind whether Snowden was misguided, stupid or justified. But I have concluded that the man is principled and a selfless patriot. He might be stupid and misguided, but he felt he did the right thing, at great personal cost to himself, for no personal reward.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said, thats exactly how I feel about it all too.
I'm tending to the side of justfied though. The government should represent the people, not the other way round.
Yes he should (Score:2)
Clueless (Score:2)
Only in a democracy (Score:2)
In a police state Snowden will never be pardoned.
Hi cold fjord, is that you? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are right, he does deserve jail time.
Unfortunately, he would probably get far worse if he returned... and we'd never hear anything about it from any official channels... or at least not anytime soon enough for it to matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you cite previous examples of the "far worse" you are alluding to? Thank you.
Re: Snowden broke the law. Period (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. He was a considered a suicide risk and ordered to — heavens! — sleep naked [wikipedia.org]. That's not sleep deprivation, not torture, not cruel, not unusual, and certainly not punishment.
You are pushing for a record in the number of errors per word... Congratulations.
Re: (Score:3)
The man deserves jail time. There are many more criminals on the Internet and he made public government secrets that compromise our security as well as gave terrorists insight on how to avoid being traced. Edward Snowden should be executed.
Snowden should be tried for the crimes he (allegedly) committed. Let the trial be as public as possible. I won't clamor for jail time or execution until a jury finds him guilty (innocent until proven guilty and all that). The punishment should fit the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, we here were all reading about splitters in the AT&T data trunks a decade ago. Been "clearing browser cookies" since the 90s. Warned that the web-browser was a becoming a return to the dumb-client/mainframe model which robs freedom from the user since forever.
But paranoid narratives like that are never picked up by the media on account of anything less than massive public interest and fanfare like Assange has provided and copious hard-evidence as Snowden provided. The burden of proof for wh
Re:Pardon What? (Score:4, Informative)
Nope... Nixon got one.
Re:Pardon What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, you can be pardoned for any crime. A conviction firmly establishes that a crime occurred, but the president can pardon you for any federal offense. See Carter's pre-emptive pardon of all the draft dodgers and Ford's pardon of Nixon, before charges were even filed.
Now, technically, accepting a pardon means that you were guilty of said crime. Hence, why Ford may have thought the pardon of Nixon was an elegant compromise. He admits wrongdoing and had already resigned, and we stop trying to throw him in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Alrighty. Let the pardoning commence.
The man got a generation to see their security in a way that more reflects reality.
Conviction is not needed (Score:3)
That's an interesting thought, I had to look it up.
Gerald Ford pardoned [wikipedia.org] Richard Nixon, for all offences "committed or may have committed".
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Apparently the presidential pardon is for crimes, not offences.
Which, I suppose, is the right way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that you have to be convicted before you can be pardoned.
Mr. O could maybe influence the prosecutors drop charges, but I have no clue how that works.
No, the presidential pardon power is very broad and allows the president to pardon for "for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is no requirement to be convicted of any crime; and a pardon, unlike deciding not to prosecute, prevents prosecutor in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Should and will are two different things in this case...
Re: (Score:3)
Pardoning implies that Snowden violated the law, which he clearly did. It's a way of acknowledging that the crime committed was the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Pardons have been used in cases where the pardoner believed the person was falsely accused.