1) Rather than avail himself of the many
lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr.
Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks.
WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it.
2)...vast majority ofthe documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy
interests
How do you verify this? you can't
3)..In the course of doing so, he infiringed on the privacy of thousands of his friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens
Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans
4) The material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities
authorized and overseen by all three branches of govemment.
- the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence.
> WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it.
Then why not bring proof? 1.5 million documents and he can't bring the emails he sent? No, we saw the emails (that is to say, one email: https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-b...) that were sent to OGC, and nothing in them indicated he was raising any concerns.
> How do you verify this? you can't
He took 1.5 million documents and we've seen what, maybe 100-200 documents and slides over the course of three years? What's the other 1,499,800 million classified documents about?
> Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans
Fine, if he had only taken documents pertaining to his qualms then there would have been a much greater chance of him being labeled a whistleblower or at least be met with some leniency even if he didn't in fact follow the proper channels.
> the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence.
1,499,800 documents that likely have absolutely zero to do with what he was supposed to be blowing the whistle on.
Have these documents been released? Do you know under what extenuating circumstances he was under when he collected these documents? What's your point?
My point is how do you pardon someone for whistleblowing when literally 99.99% of what they took from a classified space has nothing to do with what they were supposedly blowing the whistle on?
If he was under duress he probably didn't have time to filter through the documents. Even if he had a bit of time, it's difficult to know what would be relevant as events unfolded after the release.
In any case, it's already been established that he broke the law in order to expose a much greater law breaking, but many if not most people believe it to be OK because we also believe that it was impossible to expose the information in any other way. Considering all the miss-steps most whistleblowers made in their activities, Snowden was remarkably careful and clean. He made some calculations on what he needed to collect to successfully expose the crimes he witnessed, and the accuracy of those calculations is up for debate. I could easily come up with several reasons why he might have thought that he needed all those documents while under duress. For example, there may have been evidence of other crimes, and there would be no way he could sift through the documents while still working. Also, he recognized that he needed to leak slowly in order to keep the story afloat, or else he would get buried under propaganda and forgotten, as has happened to other whistleblowers that released all at once.
> If he was under duress he probably didn't have time to filter through the documents. Even if he had a bit of time, it's difficult to know what would be relevant as events unfolded after the release.
The dude planned this for years, he said it himself. He had plenty of time to simply take evidence of what he was going to blow the whistle on. I don't understand your argument.
> impossible to expose the information in any other way
Except for the many oversight channels that exists which there has yet to be any evidence he used.
> For example, there may have been evidence of other crimes, and there would be no way he could sift through the documents while still working.
If I understand your argument correctly, it's: "it's possible something here is illegal so let's just take all of it." I shouldn't have to explain why that doesn't jive.
> Also, he recognized that he needed to leak slowly in order to keep the story afloat, or else he would get buried under propaganda and forgotten, as has happened to other whistleblowers that released all at once.
None of this addresses the fact that it seems he did a recursive pull of supersecretnsadomain.gov and deuced out to China under the pretenses of whistleblowing.
> Except for the many oversight channels that exists which there has yet to be any evidence he used.
That is absolutely not true. There is plenty of evidence that he tried to report to several superiors. Read the accounts yourself.
> None of this addresses the fact that it seems he did a recursive pull of supersecretnsadomain.gov and deuced out to China under the pretenses of whistleblowing.
If he was looking to dump documents on china and russia for fun and profit, why exactly would he go through the rigamarole of working with the guardian, making an ethical issue out of it, spending tons of time meeting with various celebrities and dignitaries, doing talks, writing essays, and crafting a remarkably coherent and complex false narrative. That sounds about as far fetched as most things that get labeled conspiracy theories. He'd have to be one serious double agent to pull all that off.
"Doublespeak" doesn't mean "statements I disagree with" or even "statements that are incorrect". There is nothing vague about the language in this letter.
"BREAKING: Government officials dislike those who expose their illegal surveillance and trigger global debate about their behavior."
"If House Intel Committee had done its job of exercising oversight over NSA, there'd have been no Snowden. He did their job for them. If you don't want leaks, don't build a secret, illegal system of mass surveillance and then hide it and lie about it to the public."
It's the House Intelligence committee. Peter King didn't start it, nor does he chair it. Every minority member of the committee appears to have signed it as well.
Snowden insists he has not shared the 1.5 million
documents with anyone, but the Russians officials publically concede that he "did share intelligence" with their government.
"Russian officials" here refers to a single MP, Franz Klintsevich. If you look at his widely-quoted words carefully, which offer no specifics, it sounds more like he's simply speculating that that's what Snowden did:
"Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it."
EDIT: Apparently, Klintsevich actually said "to be frank, I think that he shared..." in the original interview ("я думаю что поделился что поделился"), but for whatever reason, NPR dropped the "я думаю" part in its translation.
Greenwald has stated that Snowden has leaked certain things for self-preservation. [1] Once that precedent is established, it isn't much of a leap to imagine that he would be willing to do that again if pressured by the Russian government.
Then wouldn't it have been better for the intelligence community if he hadn't had to flee the US for self-preservation? If we had better whistle-blower protections Russia would never have entered the picture.
Yes, which is exactly why the report harps on the fact that he did leave and got stuck flying between the US's two biggest political rivals. The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Staying in the US would have certainly involved personal sacrifices from Snowden and he may not trust he would receive a fair trial. However that is why whistle blowers are celebrated. They but themselves at risk for the greater good. And you can't just say the ends justify the means for Snowden potentially giving up information to the Russians because that is the exact logic people inside the NSA use for this type of mass surveillance in the first place. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. Snowden appears to have failed on both of those accounts.
The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it.
Actually it was the Obama administration that put him in that position, by revoking his passport.
Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions.
This is just empty posturing. For one thing, Snowden already is accepting significant repercussions for his actions (in ways that I don't think I need to detail for you; but which most likely are far greater than repercussions you've faced, or likely ever will face for taking a principled stand).
For another, taking responsibility for your actions doesn't mean you are required to throw yourself under a bus and accept whatever unjust persecutions† the system is waiting to throw at you. And when that system becomes sufficiently corrupt and unaccountable, not only do you have a right, you have moral duty to escape and defy that system -- and continue your struggle -- to whatever extent possible.
†BTW, by "unjust persecution" I don't mean a lengthy jail sentence; I mean the very high probability that he would be tortured, the way Chelsea Manning is being tortured right now, as we speak -- as her way of accepting the very same "repercussions" that you, from the safety of your keyboard, are asking Snowden to accept:
First off, you can't blame Obama when Snowden was in China before any of his leaks became public. He could have been anywhere in the world at the time of the leaks, but he chose Hong Kong.
Secondly, I like how you are the one accusing me of posturing and then say that Snowden has received harsher repercussions than anything I have experienced, talk about posturing.
I didn't make the same decisions as Snowden. I know that most of us wouldn't make the same decisions in his situation. That is why the system exists how it does as countless people allow it to happen. Like I said, that is why we champion whistle blowers. They do something uncommon and difficult. But that choice also involves facing their accusers. Going to jail is often part of it for anyone practicing civil disobedience. It was part of the missions for everyone from MLK Jr to Gandhi. Yes, it is a lot to ask of Snowden to compare him to people like that, but once again no one put Snowden in that position but Snowden.
Hmm - your point seems to come down to: "He put chose to put himself in that position. Therefore, he should accept whatever wildly unjust persecution the system will surely hit him with the moment they get their hands on him. And therewith, further promote the chilling deterrent effect against anyone who might contemplate taking a similar, principled stand."
You can hold that position if you want. But I just don't buy it.
The thought that someone is obligated to forfeit their freedom and even entertain the risk of spending a day in prison because of another party's abuse doesn't even begin to make sense, so that is a load of crap.
How was it overseen by Congress when they were lied to, repeatedly, about the existence of the programs they supposedly oversaw?
How was it overseen by courts who had never been permitted to see evidence of existence?
As far as I can tell, it was unilateral executive action started by the guys who brought us waterboarding, and continued by an executive who mostly continued the same foreign policy. And it is a tool whose largest beneficiary is the same executive branch that authorized it.
Regardless of who was in on it before the leak, the fact that Congress is willing to own a widely unpopular and (likely) illegal program after the leak does not engender much confidence that this branch of government would have responded productively to a less publicized whistleblower who worked through the legal system. In short, they're complacent to domestic snooping.
It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on a lot of different programs - some of them presumably weren't known to Congress, some were. It is known that Snowden both leaked information on illegal activities and legal actives of the NSA. Leaking information about legal activities generally isn't protected by whistle-blowing laws or otherwise.
As for the rights of whistleblowers, the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more than all other previous administrations combined. Would YOU trust this administration if you thought they were doing wrong?
I wasn't saying anything against that - read my comment again ("It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on lots of different programs ..."). What I'm saying is that Snowden leaked a lot more then just the fact that the NSA gathers data on US citizens. Some of that data was on legitimate NSA activities, which is why claiming he is purely a whistle-blower is a bit hard to do: Leaking the data on illegal NSA activities is a legitimate argument for a whistle-blower defense, leaking data on legal NSA activities is not.
All I'm saying is that it is not a black and white issue. The reality is that even if you accept that he should have immunity for blowing the whistle on illegal NSA activities he revealed (As I do), the other things he did are still serious and it is hard to argue he should be pardoned in full for it. He could have only leaked information on the NSA illegal activities, but he didn't.
For example, the NSA stalked and hacked the personal property of multiple engineers at multiple telecom companies in multiple friendly countries, solely as a means to attack their employer in order to spy on their employer's customers.
Attacking law abiding foreign civilians in friendly countries like Belgium and Germany is not somehow more ok than hacking Americans. Enough of this "it's only foreigners" nonsense.
This seemed to be the biggest flaw in the new movie. IMHO, it could've used a scene or 2 of policy discussion with some Congressional committee/White House. I think it did a good job of showing how those in intelligence think, but not so much on the front end of the gov (our representatives).
You've composed a logically fallacious argument. To do so, you've assumed that the premise of that sentence in the House letter is that everything Snowden stole pertains to lawful activities. But that's not the case. Rather, among the many things Snowden took are numerous documents pertaining to lawful intelligence activities.
Since the majority of the documents in the Snowden cache have not been disclosed, it appears that the facts are on House Intelligence's side with respect to that specific statement, and you cannot therefore use it as evidence that Snowden was required to leak directly to the press.
You can still believe leaking to the press was a good thing! You just can't justify it with the specific argument you made.
Snowden's leaks were damaging to the members of this committee, because they showed the American public that the American intelligence apparatus is not subject to any meaningful oversight. So it is entirely predictable that the members of this committee would try to protect themselves by shifting focus to Snowden, away from their criminality.
Three years have elapsed since Snowden's revelations, and the intelligence community has not been able to show how the leaks have compromised national security. This is why the signatories of this letter have to avail themselves to gauzy arguments about Snowden's character and insinuations of collusion with Russia or China.
To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this?
> Mr. Snowden's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to protect Americans,
privacy and civil liberties is undercut by his actions. Rather than avail himself of the many
lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr.
Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. The
vast majority of the documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy
interests, but instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to
America's enemies.
Sure. Tons of revelations on actual clandestine activities (think ops NSA ran against other nation states, not US citizens, and not even US citizens indirectly) were compromised.
That's a mishmash of disclosures including those Snowden claimed to focus on, but there are plenty stemming from the Snowden leaks which had to do with run of the mill intercepts against foreign states and even against allies (because allies spy on allies all the time, let's be honest).
Whether "vast majority" is true isn't something I can say because I personally haven't actually read the leaks themselves, but it wouldn't surprise me given that most of the news after the big US revelations were all about NSA activities outside the US against non-US persons.
I won't bring my own opinion into this, but given my reply, it's probably fairly easy to discern what I think should(n't) be done here.
I'd say the most important part of this statement:
> Rather than avail himselfofthe many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms...
Is patently false. He did attempt to use those channels and was ignored [1] - at least once as confirmed by the NSA itself, and many other times according to him, which the NSA disputes.
Just because there's only one email doesn't mean there were not substantial efforts made in other ways. Phones exist. Talking to people in person is a thing.
If you're going to leak 1.5 million documents and flee to China on the grounds of being a whistleblower after following proper channels, wouldn't you want to display some, any sort of proof that you indeed did attempt to follow the proper channels?
People claim this dude was a genius, make him out as some sort of tech/hacker savant, so why not make the slightest effort to show the world you really are a whistleblower?
We also have statements from Snowden suggesting that the reason he took the job was to gain access to those documents and them disseminate them to various world governments, which is a goal that would be impeded by whistleblowing through channels.
If it's "demonstrably" false, you haven't demonstrated it yet. Can you point us to some evidence showing that he complained to any authority within the government about what he learned about NSA's activities? You'll need to show more than that he mailed someone; we'll need to know more about what was in that mail.
You can put forward the argument that Snowden tried to escalate through channels, but you cannot reasonably say that it's patently true that he did, because the evidence doesn't support that claim. The simplest thing to say about this as that there is a dispute over whether Snowden tried to escalate through channels.
> Is patently false. He did attempt to use those channels and was ignored [1] - at least once as confirmed by the NSA itself, and many other times according to him, which the NSA disputes.
The same article you link says Snowden "tried to go through channels". It's not "patently false". It's "he claimed he tried". Meanwhile, investigations show only one email he sent regarding general clarification on NSA authorities but zero raising any concern or complaints: https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-b...
The senators claim he did not avail himself of these channels. He did avail himself of a channel. That much is not in dispute. He may not have done so to your satisfaction, or apparently to the satisfaction of these senators - but that isn't what they claimed. They claimed he didn't do it at all. And that is patently false.
He asked a general question regarding authorities to OGC. What's the bar of "availing" himself to a channel? If he sent an email to OGC asking how their weekend was, he would have technically "consulted with OGC", would he not?
As it stands, there is zero evidence (from either side) that Snowden complained to the proper channels.
And why would he when his plan was to leave the country with 1.5 million classified documents?
There is some truth to it; though I think part of Snowden's ability to publish the public-interest information is predicated on his threat to publish the really important stuff. Then again, he could easily just be a foreign operative, we never will know. I, for one, am happy that we have some knowledge of the programs exposed. I do not, however, harbour the illusion that Snowden is definitely altruistic.
Though to answer the "why not stay?" question; I don't honestly think that there is any practical way to expose U.S. secrets in the United States. By the time the news reports came out, he had already been targeted in several forcible operations. I also doubt that anything would have been done, considering that they haven't done much about it despite the entire world knowing.
"the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities" don't exist. That's just talk. Previous NSA whistleblowers tried to use them and got nowhere. Thomas Drake had his life destroyed for trying to use these "lawful avenues". All the previous NSA whistleblowers agree that Snowden did the right thing. He did the only thing he could, given the circumstances.
First, Drake's life was hardly "destroyed". He was investigated, charged, and then then allowed to plea out to a misdemeanor.
Second, Drake didn't simply escalate his concerns through channels; he also spoke directly to the media. His media contact occurred contemporaneously with the largest NSA leak story to have occurred prior to Snowden, the investigation of which was ordered directly by George Bush.
You clearly have made no effort to learn more than brief metadata about what path Drake's life took. You are too quick to be contrarian.
Also, I believe I debunked this last time you incorrectly conflated Drake with a completely unrelated leak. Drake did not pass anything classified to the media. He was raided, but never charged with anything other than retaining a document that had an ambiguous classification. His charge was so trivial that if Hillary's email transgressions were pursued with half as much vigor as his, she would be eating through a tube in Guantanamo by comparison. And I say that as someone who does not think the email scandal is more than a dumb but inconsequential mistake.
He did not plea bargain. They could not deliver on a single charge out of their trumped up indictment. They were on a witch hunt, had the wrong guy, and found out much later.
Edit: I'll just link to my old post last time we discussed this.
I wish you'd stop defaming Drake. Sometimes you make what sound like well-researched assertions of fact when you are actually more interested in combating rageviews than getting the story right.
I understand that as a feeling, but I can't logically justify it. What reason did he have to trust in the system to treat him fairly? The rightness of the programs he exposed, and our right to know about them, don't depend on whether he decided to martyr himself.
Why is that relevant? Is he a whistleblower or not is the question. Whether he gets pardoned from a jail cell or Russia makes no difference. Avoiding a trial isn't the central issue.
Check out this Intelligence Squared debate between Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers) vs. a former CIA director - it provides a deeper insight into the perspective behind this letter, and the vacuous arguments made by the anti-Snowden cohort: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-jus...
The letter reminds me of how the DEA is consistently hyperbolic regarding the public health dangers of marijuana. To concede that weed is essentially harmless and medically useful would invalidate much of the drug war the DEA has waged for the past 40 years.
Similarly - to acknowledge Snowden in any positive light would invalidate the spying regime instituted by the U.S. government. And force the to acknowledge that their powerful spy tools require equally powerful oversight.
The lesson the NSA, the House committee, and others should take from Snowden is not that he's a villain. Rather, that one way or the other substantial oversight is going to occur, even if it requires the largest leak in history. Create truly transparent and accountable systems and there will be no more Snowdens. Throw the book at him, become more insular and secretive, and the problem will only get worse.
Because admitting that Snowden was a whistleblower or a patriot would imply that they had not been doing their jobs as overseers. It would also potentially limit the power of the intelligence apparatus, which would in turn limit the power of these congressmen as some of their clout comes from being on a committee overseeing a constellation of powerful agencies. Their incentives are completely misaligned.
That depends on the members of the committee. Are they dedicated to substantive oversight, or a rubber-stamp process? This controversy ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight and accountability. The current spying regime maintains oversight by pliant secret courts and congressional committees is enough. The scale of the spying powers has not been met by equally powerful oversight.
> Rather than avail himself [Snowden] of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities ...
Yes, Snowden obviously should have chosen to sit in USG's cage instead of having meaningfully exposed their criminal conspiracy!
I guess the struggle of being on the wrong side of history is that you have to double-down on efforts to keep the temporary condition going. These skinjobs know that when their reign is over, it's over for good.
FWIW I think this idea that Obama is all of a sudden going to pardon Snowden is laughable. But the outcome of this situation will be a good indicator of whether Obama was actually a decent person trapped by politics, or yet another empty salesperson for the status quo.
The original reference is to Replicants, but the concept is general. They look human, but only function mechanically.
(Yes I'm aware this is unfair to actual artificial intelligence, which will likely be complex enough to have feelings. But for now that's just in movies, and hopefully by the time we actually have that kind of AI the term will no longer be needed as no individual will be pushed into acting as a robot)
> Mr. Snowden is not a patriot. He is not a whistleblower. He is a criminal.
Quite a statement! It's obviously not black and white. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think the conversation needs to be inclusive, frank and factual. And this statement from our representatives shows a major problem. They don't want conversation, they want sound bites.
As an aside, I saw the movie last night and highly recommend it to anyone unsure or not aware of what happened. It seems to be accurate enough to portray the essence of his experiences and decision making process.
Treason is a political crime. Snowden committed a crime to reveal much bigger crime and danger to constitution and American people. He didn't benefit from it personally.
Legal system or constitution is not end-all. Laws just approximate what is considered morally correct action and their interpretations often follow little behind the changes. Big positive changes in society often start with breaking the law. Snowden may be legally traitor now but in the deeper sense he did not betray his country.
I used treason as colloquialism to describe two felony charges under the Espionage Act.
The intent of the Eespionage Act was to protect U.S against traitors inside US.
>I am sorry to say that the gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life;
I believe that Snowden's actions were technically criminal, even perhaps technically treasonous. I also believe that he was a patriotic whistleblower, and that his actions are pardonable. The letter seeks to oppose these two ideas, but they are not logically contradictory. The law is not always morally correct, and a presidential pardon is a way to correct this in extraordinary circumstances.
I do believe that Snowden should have been willing to be incarcerated for what he did. However, I believe he did his (my) country an exceptional service, and he should be exonerated on that basis.
> "I've volunteered to go to prison with the government many times," Snowden said in an interview with the BBC that aired Monday. "What I won't do is I won't serve as a deterrent to people trying to do the right thing in difficult situations."
There are 23 signatures, and it's easy to find several of the minority's members among them. It looks to me like every member of House Intelligence signed.
There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen. Obama has nothing to gain from this, and has never said or done anything to give the slightest impression he had any sympathy for Snowden.
This is precisely the reason presidents wait until the end of both terms before making any pardons. It's possible (however unlikely) that Obama, deep down, doesn't actually condemn him as much as he has let on publicly. Regardless of how he personally feels, until now, there are appearances that had to be kept up. So while now he still has nothing to gain by pardoning him, there is now much less to lose than there had been previously.
> There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen. Obama has nothing to gain from this
Neither of these have to be true. However,
1) Obama will certainly not do something this controversial before the election.
2) Obama absolutely has really nothing to lose either by pardoning Snowden at the end of his term. In fact, he actually has quite a bit of credibility to gain among the people who care.
As an Indian immigrant who does not have voting rights in USA nor very keen follower of American politics it appears to me that the biggest danger to American freedom is the leading presidential candidate who has received several billions of dollars from corrupt foreign powers for dubious reasons and might become Commander-In-Chief of USA and also appoint judges who are expected to pass important judgements about what freedoms Americans can have.
Threat posed by Snowden is not even on the same plane as the threat posed by such potentially compromised political leader.
It totally baffles me that this is not THE biggest issue in American politics. Imagine Uber is appointing a CEO who is getting $$$ for Lyft!
My view is that he has failed. The media where I live don't report anything at all about Snowden anymore, he might as well not exist.
But then the media where I live are supine lickspittles who spend their time regurgitating Government media releases and celebrity news.
It's hilarious, these are the people supposed to do the oversight. And they're calling a whistleblower a criminal who triggered actual oversight and new laws.
Sure, the new laws are bullshit, but surely you can't do this play right here without losing face.
Whatever your opinion on Snowden, his actions pre- and post-exposure, let's at least agree on the following:
1) Snowden would probably not have gotten a trial, he would probably have gone to Gitmo, forever. That's how post-9/11 USA rolls.
2) Intelligence services everywhere operate outside the law wherever and whenever possible. That's why they exist. And they do not respect the legislature or the courts, except where it serves theie purposes.
3) Internal mechanisms such as IG don't work as efficiently as people would have us believe. Whistleblowers are considered, by and large, as "rats." And those whose job it is to maintain accountability are frequently shunned -- think of a police department's internal affairs.
4) Lawful does not mean moral, righteous, or even in the best interest of one's country. Before launching into a Joe Friday "if you don't like the law, change it" speech, ask yourself this -- when was the last time a cop or any other government minion ever took a public stand against a law they thought was wrong? Ever wonder why?
Not that he ever really disappeared, but it's definitely interesting to see the resurgence of Snowden in the zeitgeist now that Pres. Obama's term is coming to a close. A big part of it is undoubtedly people knowing that pardons uptick in the November - January time period for obvious reasons, but I wonder how much of it is worries that the next administration will not be so amenable.
The signatures are from the members of the house intelligence committee, the names of which are listed in the top left corner of the first page of the pdf
Clinton said, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.” in a debate. Not sure about Trump recently, but in 2013 he was very against Snowden and referenced execution as a punishment for him several times.
What a presidential candidate says about pardons during their campaign should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The reason they wait until the end of both of their terms is so that the decision does not affect their support from voters or any potential bi-partisan support.
Anyone who is refusing to see that the whole Snowden issue is not black and white in my opinion does not deserve serious attention.
Snowden has done an important public service there is no doubt about it. But without looking at all the information he has leaked we can not say for certain he might have erred or put lives of Americans at risk. That is still a crime.
Of course if Hillary can present "recklessness" as defense I think Snowden should be able to do the same. He was a bit reckless in his zeal for protecting rights of Americans.
So this is probably just semantics, but can someone be "pardoned" when they have not yet been tried and found guilty of a crime? Until Snowden is tried and found guilty, he is innocent. What is there to exonerate at present?
It's law rather than semantics. The wikipedia article [0] on Nixon's pardon refers to this specifically:
"After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt."
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
He is a hero, but he gave confidential government information to foreign powers. Objectively speaking, he betrayed the NSA and the US government. That's treason
Debating whether or not what Snowden did was treason is, I think, folly. You can't. He's a traitor to the NSA and the US government.
The question in my mind is whether or not his act of treachery had a net positive effect on the citizens of the US and the world. I think human beings have a right to know they're being spied on, en masse, without any reasonable suspicion, so that they can do something about it. For me, Snowden is a hero for what he's done, and for the sacrifices he's made in an effort to make the world a freer place (or at least get the ball rolling).
Remember that you don't pardon the innocent. Even those calling for his pardon know that he's guilty. Their argument is just that what he did was worth breaking the law.
They systematically disregarded the constitution. Those responsible should be put in jail for life, for crimes against the American people and betraying our country.
1) Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks.
WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it.
2)...vast majority ofthe documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests
How do you verify this? you can't
3)..In the course of doing so, he infiringed on the privacy of thousands of his friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens
Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans
4) The material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of govemment.
- the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence.
What a bunch of gutless hypocrites.