NY Times Argues, Forcefully, That The US Should Offer Snowden Clemency
from the more-people-are-realizing dept
We've certainly discussed plenty of reasons why the US government should recognize that Ed Snowden was an important whistleblower, who should be welcomed home enthusiastically for all he's done -- not threatened with decades in prison or worse. However, it's still surprising to see a newspaper like the NY Times now not only directly calling Snowden a "whistleblower" but arguing forcefully for why the US government should offer him clemency, bring him home, and have him be very involved in the ongoing process to protect our privacy, limit the surveillance state and provide true and meaningful oversight of the intelligence community.The editorial board doesn't endorse full amnesty, but rather "a plea bargain or some form of clemency" in which he'd face "substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower." The editorial points out that the claims from government officials, including President Obama, that there were many paths Snowden could have taken to blow the whistle are either misleading or outright lies (especially in the case of President Obama, who insisted that Snowden would have been protected under his executive order -- but that executive order didn't apply to consultants like Snowden). In the end, the editorial board notes that Snowden clearly recognized that going through "official channels" wouldn't have done anything.
In fact, that executive order did not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. More important, Mr. Snowden told The Washington Post earlier this month that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the N.S.A., and that they took no action. (The N.S.A. says there is no evidence of this.) That’s almost certainly because the agency and its leaders don’t consider these collection programs to be an abuse and would never have acted on Mr. Snowden’s concerns.It goes on to list a bunch of revelations and legal actions that are only happening because of Snowden's decisions, and directly notes how "valuable" Snowden's decision to leak information has been. It also calls out those who claim Snowden's efforts somehow damaged the US, saying there's simply no proof.
In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not.
The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nation’s security. Many of the mass-collection programs Mr. Snowden exposed would work just as well if they were reduced in scope and brought under strict outside oversight, as the presidential panel recommended.In the end, the editorial makes a simple point that should be repeated over and over again:
When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government.Indeed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clemency, ed snowden
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hopefully tomorrow's editorial will say "When government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, those officials should face prison."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just one question...
i've had few heroes in my life, but manning, snowden, kiriakou, browning, jacobsen, etc are the few beacons of hope left to us...
time for the rest of us to step up and be counted among them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However:
1) Could you elaborate on how "Freedom and human rights" constitute "shit" in any way? Somehow I doubt if I'm the only person in the U.S. who has a deep and abiding love for these things. You seem to be misinterpreting (or at least overgeneralizing) your cartoon philosophy.
2) Why is it that someone who derives any part of his political thinking from a scatalogical cartoon about children would believe he has any significant level of insight into discussion, as opposed to, say, letting the adults talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on Clapper
His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)
Don't recall seeing a mainstream publication use the term "lie" rather than the more weaselly "falsely testified." Better still to see the Times suggest the lie merits punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
President Obama Slays Edward Snowden's "Whistleblower" Myth
The Plot Thickens on Edward Snowden's Sino-Russian Love Affair
A few thoughts on Snowden, Greenwald, and the NSA
In 2009, Ed Snowden said leakers �should be shot.� Then he became one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From the Ars article:
Hooo-righty then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a way to force these changes but it will require the public to tell the politicians if they don't address and put serious fixes to these issues of privacy their jobs are at stake. Removal from office for failing to do the will of the people is the one thing politicians take most serious. Above and beyond any idea of accepting war chest campaign contributions they will pay attention to that first. We are no where near the level to put the heat on them but that's what it is going take. Some other form of heat will be the US corporations profit damage out of the Snowden revelations with a global loss of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Removal from office for politicians for not going on the word of a whiny crybaby's so-called 'revelations?' Good luck with that.
The emotarian left is barking up the wrong tree on this, and taking good people with them to the gutter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight...
It seems to me that what the NSA shills are trying to claim is that terrorists are too stupid to figure out that they are being spied upon, foreign governments are too stupid to figure out that they are being spied upon, and the the American people should just shut up and be spied upon because if they aren't doing anything wrong then they don't need any stinkin' 4th Amendment protections. Because, you know, the NSA would never do anything wrong with your data, just trust them.
So, all of the massive damage that was done to the NSA anti-terrorist program was where the terrorists probably already "knew" they were being spied on or were actually too stupid to know better. What am I missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pardons and such
Pardons are only granted for convicted felons. Last time I checked, there was such a thing as 'due process' and that Snowden has never been officially processed for such alleged crimes. He has never stepped inside a courtroom to be officially given a list of them, nor has he ever been able to answer such charges in court, which is one of the steps in due process.
For all intents and purposes right now, Snowden is still presumed to be innocent of any crime until that day comes-which, if he is wise and patient, will be a very long time coming.
The government has the burden of proof in this case. Would they really like to stack up what they've done to the American people against what Snowden did and call it an even trade? Not in my eyes-I'd call their crimes far worse than anything he did-multiple and continuing violations of the Constitution, and their oaths of office.
Which is a set of crimes called treason, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pardons and such
Reason I say this is that I don't believe Nixon was ever convicted of anything, yet Ford pardoned him anyway.
That out of the way, I agree, a pardon would not the right way to go about it in this case, as it still suggests that he did commit a crime.
Instead, what I think should be done is for the administration to state, plainly and without any room for question, that he did not do anything wrong, that since his actions were done solely to benefit the public, and bring to light illegal/quasi-legal actions, and rules he may have broken to do so are at fault, not him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pardons and such
Tell that to Anwar Al-Awlaki who was put on a kill list and specifically targeted for death by a US drone strike without ever having stepped into court either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pardons and such
Not true. Many Presidential pardons have been granted to people who haven't been convicted of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of Presidential Pardons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_th e_United_States
You will notice the huge numbers of convicted felons. Nixon was the very rare exception, but that one is because he would have been undoubtedly charged with numerous crimes if he had not resigned the Presidency. It came just before he was about to be indicted by Congress and impeached.
I stand by my statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]