ACLU Launching Campaign To Have President Obama Pardon Snowden
from the timed-to-the-movie dept
The ACLU has been hinting at this for the past few months, but with the end of President Obama's term in office coming up and coinciding with the launch of Oliver Stone's feature film about Ed Snowden, the ACLU, along with Amnesty International, are launching an official campaign to ask the President to issue a pardon for Ed Snowden. They'll be hosting a press conference Wednesday morning, where Snowden will show up via video (perhaps using Robot Snowden?) to discuss. Not surprisingly, the ACLU says they've lined up a bunch of "legal scholars, policy experts, human rights leaders, technologists and former government officials," who will all be supporting a pardon for Snowden.There will also apparently be a sign-on form on the site PardonSnowden.org, which is currently locked up behind a password (get busy cracking that, NSA).
Not surprisingly, I think the president absolutely should pardon Snowden. I also think there's very, very, very little chance that he actually will. I wouldn't put the chance at 0% -- because it's possible. But I'd still put the likelihood in the single digits. I hope I'm wrong -- and I hope that the President recognizes why pardoning Snowden would be such a good thing, and an important part of his legacy. And I hope that the movie (which I have not seen) properly puts Snowden's actions in context (though I'm not entirely convinced Oliver Stone will do so). So, perhaps I'm wrong. But I just find it super unlikely that President Obama would stick his neck out and take a stand like that.
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: ed snowden, pardon, president obama, whistleblowing, white house
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
From wikipedia:
'The Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.'
Reading a little farther down though reveals a bit of a problem with the 'Pardon Snowden' idea.
'It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.'
Assuming the wording applies to both 'types' of pardons then for the pardon to work Snowden would be forced into basically admitting guilt, which he may or may not wish to do for various reasons.
And of course the ultimate kicker of course is that pardon or not he'd still be stuck in Russia, as he's angered enough high-powered and placed people in the USG that coming back to the US would still likely pose a significant risk even if the government couldn't 'officially' punish him for the particular actions the pardon would cover.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pardon?
Snowden also showed up just how two faced the US state department where.
No wont happen. Still, it may provide some much needed hillarity in the white house, and as that seems to be thin on the ground, i'm sure it will be appreciated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not going to happen.
It just doesn't fit their somewhat confused narrative to acknowledge Snowden's contribution with regard to hauling the U.S. back into the scope of its constitution. The U.S. administration is not interested in aiding such an endeavor or acknowledging it as worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not convinced either!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is of course if he hasn't got any plans after his term is up.
Most of what they say they believe and the policies that they introduce are colored by their party, popularity and what can appease their opponents.
This is what creates the bulk of very bad and very stupid proposals, especially in the tech area.
For all we know, Obama might be a great Snowden supporter who has been forced by his sorroundings to remain in the closet.
Now supposed we had a president on his last year without any grand future plans in places with colored agendas (basically if he left politics). There would be a chance that this person would try to do something crazy to be remembered. It would be the ideal time to actually pull this off, if enough people supports it.
It is a chance that it will make him more unpopular, but it might just be crazy enough to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pardoning means that he has done something that is wrong, and particularly, ethically reproachable.
AFAIK, Snowden has done what any decent citizen should have done.
He doesn't need a pardon. The proper thing here is to vindicate his actions, not to pardon them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It will still be "the liberals are aiding the traitors against the U.S.A. in their war against terror" (never mind that "the liberals" have very little to do with the Democratic Party). Obama still wants to continue a worthwhile life in the U.S.A., and he will be among the first expatriated muslim terrorist sympathizers if Trump makes the race. Trump already stated that he considers Obama a cofounder of al Khaida.
So Obama will not want to do anything jeopardizing Hillary's chance to avert the Trumpocalypse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
the good get pilloried, the bad get dirty money...
going to the wed preview screening with stone/snowden chat afterwards... *then* i'm going to march on washingtoon to free snowden and manning and brown and all the rest of the political prisoners in totally free amerika...
okay, i'd like to *think* i have the balls to pick up my torch and pitchfork and march on washingtoon; but i won't, i will slink into my shit job the next day with stupid, clueless co-workers and authoritarian bosses, and i'm left wondering why the world sucks, then simultaneously realize it is because we are a nation of pampered, cowardly pussies which includes myself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He doesn't need a pardon, he needs realistic charges
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too optimistic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yes, but
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: yes, but
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: He doesn't need a pardon, he needs realistic charges
And I don't see a prospectively successful presidential candidate who'd not want to retain the option to turn things to the worse here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Only a fool would believe that a pardon implies guilt.
People with fuzzy logic like you need to stop fucking voting, I am sick and tired of liberties being taken away because you can be fooled so damn easily!
Snowden should be pardoned. He knows exactly for a fucking fact that he will absolutely NOT get a fair trial and he knows that the American people are cowards and will not stop the government from destroying him.
American LOVE corruption so much that we don't even call it corruption any more! We just call it politics!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would never issue a pardon to him
But instead, it appears that he simply did a data dump of every intelligence program he could get his hands on, include what are perfectly legit intelligence operations of the sort we (and everybody) have intelligence agencies for to begin with. (Manning did essentially the same with diplomatic cables.)
I don't think we should encourage the "stopped clock is right twice a day" form of "whistleblowing".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pardon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's all be honest here
I realize that's an unpopular thing to say. As an ardent supporter of the guy and of what he did, I hate to say that. But it's true. What Snowden did was, in fact, illegal.
All whistleblowers break the law. The act of whistleblowing itself includes the release of some sort of information that was not intended for public viewing. Sometimes that's only breaking civil law (breach of contract on a NDA, for example) but it's always breaking a law. In the case of government whistleblowing, it almost always involves violating a security clearance, which is a federal crime. Snowden is no exception to this.
And this is EXACTLY WHY we have laws that make whistleblowing not a crime, because otherwise, it'd be a crime by default. That said, breaking a security clearance is breaking a security clearance. It's a crime no matter the intent, and it's one of the few things that, contrary to popular belief, existing whistleblower protection laws do NOT cover.
So...Snowden committed a crime. What he did was noble. It was right. It was just. But it was also illegal, and we do everyone a disservice by pretending otherwise. It SHOULDN'T be a crime, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one.
So, yes, he should admit guilt, and yes, he should be pardoned accordingly. He broke the law for the only right reason there is to do so, but if he genuinely can't bring himself to admit that he did, in fact, break the law, then he can stay in Russia until hell freezes over.
tl;dr Morality isn't binary. One can be a criminal for good reasons, but that doesn't mean you aren't a criminal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I would never issue a pardon to him
This is not even comparable to the Wikileaks dumps, and naturally Snowden could have chosen to go through the Wikileaks route. He didn't.
In other words, you are full of shit.
In contrast, all those who have demonstrably lied repeatedly to Congress and are covering up massively illegal operations are still unprosecuted and continue misappropriating massive amounts of taxpayer money for illegal endeavors, and nobody calls for even disciplinary measures.
So we are not just talking "full of shit" level here, but blatant hypocrisy. Of course, it feels nice to cheer for the "winners" even if those "winners" break all the rules. Because they are the ones holding the whips and wearing the boots. It's not like this is the first time in history it works that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
I think what he did was ethically and morally right, indeed heroic. I think Obama ought to give Snowden the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
But what he did was in clear violation of the letter of the law. So he needs a pardon (or a fair trial, which is even less likely).
Rosa Parks violated the law by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. It was the law that was wrong, not her action.
When the law is wrong, doing the morally right thing means violating the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pardoning means that he has done something that is wrong
There is clearly a need to restore the perception of governmental transparency. Pardoning Snowden is cheap in comparison to any actual political reform.
It's a bone to be thrown to the peasants. It doesn't really cost anything in the general scheme of things. I'm surprised they haven't done it already for that reason alone. Really all they are doing by holding out is validating Snowdens activities.
I'm thinking this has been considered, and they are keeping it in a hip pocket as a "get out of jail free" card, in the event that petition and organized civil disobedience should end up degenerating into violence.
"You see, we like that Constitution thing too! We let Snowden go! Now if you'll just show us your travel papers before leaving, we'd like to make sure you get everything you've got coming to you."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I would never issue a pardon to him
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
He can pardon Snowden without having any effect whatsoever on the results of the election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's all be honest here
Right, we all agree on that, but that's what a Presidential Pardon (and state-level pardons) are for. Bad laws are in place now that sanction all kinds of ordinary behavior with extreme penalties. People convicted under bad laws, and give extreme penalties, should be pardoned. Hence: Pardon Snowden!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I would never issue a pardon to him
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
Holder, Comey, Clapper, Hayden and a few others did stuff in clear violation of the letter of the law and are fine without either pardon or trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Snowden guilty of what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stand-with-chelsea-manning-on-hunger-strike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
par·don
ˈpärdn/
noun
noun: pardon
1.
the action of forgiving or being forgiven for an error or offense.
"he obtained pardon for his sins"
synonyms: forgiveness, absolution, clemency, mercy, leniency, remission
"pardon for your sins"
vin·di·cate
ˈvindəˌkāt/
verb
verb: vindicate; 3rd person present: vindicates; past tense: vindicated; past participle: vindicated; gerund or present participle: vindicating
clear (someone) of blame or suspicion.
"hospital staff were vindicated by the inquest verdict"
synonyms: acquit, clear, absolve, exonerate; More
discharge, liberate, free;
informallet off, let off the hook;
formalexculpate
"he was vindicated by the jury"
show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified.
"more sober views were vindicated by events"
synonyms: justify, warrant, substantiate, ratify, authenticate, verify, confirm, corroborate, prove, defend, support, back up, bear out, evidence, endorse
"I had fully vindicated my contention"
You still think he needs a pardon?
A pardon would be showing him "clemency", but still recognizing that HIS ACTIONS WERE WRONG.
What I want is to vindicate him, that means: SNOWDEN, YOU WERE RIGHT, GOOD JOB!!
Maybe, before jumping at others, you should grab an English dictionary and get your words right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
1. Change the law.
2. Apply the changed law retroactively. As it favors the suspect, it can be applied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pardon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's all be honest here
Also, in America we have this thing called "presumed innocent". So kindly refrain from calling him a criminal or making determination of criminality until such time as a trial does occur. And if it never does, as it looks like will be the case, well then that's just tough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's all be honest here
Snowden has repeatedly stated that he would return to the U.S. when given a fair trial where he is allowed to justify his actions. He has been accused under the Espionage Act and that means that his only permissable defense is "I didn't do it". Which would be ridiculous.
He is not allowed to defend his actions under this accusation. Judge and jury are only permitted to figure out whether he did or did not do the alleged acts, and if he did, he has to get the full penalty.
The Espionage Act is an abomination for a nation pretending to be ruled by law, and thus the Department of "Justice" chose to employ it for preventing a fair trial for Snowden.
And the DoJ is not likely to repeat the mistakes they did with Ellsberg where the judge finally threw out the case because the government worked its case using burglary, blackmail, illegal wiretapping, violation of physician/patient privilege and other shenanigans, leaving the judge in a position where he considered the delivery of justice out of his reach.
Read up the transcripts until the case was thrown out, though. Ellsberg's attorney was shouted down and silenced by the judge when he tried justifying and defending Ellsberg, and that's exactly what the Espionage Act means: the judge does not have the liberty of performing a fair trial.
Snowden has repeatedly stated that he is ready to face trial once a fair trial is permitted. But the Department of "Justice" has, by invoking the Espionage Act, given a guarantee that no fair trial will be permitted and that the U.S. is not willing to heed either international law or its own constitutional guarantees for due process where Snowden is concerned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Edward Snowden for President 2016
To along with the pardon for Edward Snowden ACLU should be working to place his name on the ballot in all 50 states in a run for president in 2016.
Once elected he could then pardon Chelsea Manning and Jeffery Sterling.
There may be those amongst us who may question Mr. Snowden's credentials to ascend to the highest elective office in the land -- there is a but simple rejoinder -- when Mr. Snowden was confronted with the life altering decision to either bury his head further down the US government's rabbit hole or go public he at great danger to his own life and liberties choose to inform the citizens of this once was republic to the extent of the US government's illegal/unconstitutional surveillance of all electronic communications regardless of a persons innocence or nationality.
In short at the very least Mr. Snowden would tell us the truth for better or for worse even at the expense of his life and liberties.
Can that be said of Clinton or Trump?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I would never issue a pardon to him
Understanding what is being designed by others against you is one thing, but the murders and corruption of others of others by any government or one of its organisations should NOT be considered normal behaviour under any circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
Under no circumstances, allow any law to be applied retroactively, ever. This concept of retroactive application is one of the worst things you can do.
If a law is completely removed, all people effected by it are no longer affected by it. Anyone imprisoned or penalised for it are released and appropriate restitution is applied - that's it. No fighting by government bodies to minimise restitution, just blanket restitution.
The one proviso to this is that those who created the expunged law then face the jury of the citizens over the reasons for the law in the first place and face appropriate consequences. If already dead then move on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
Those with the gold make the rules and as such the rules for them are different than the rules for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
That is, in short: remove that fucking piece of shit.
And btw, when you remove a law, or you make a current one more lenient, you want to retroactively apply it to those affected.
That is, you want the current law (that is, the one you are removing) to apply to a situation that existed before, where they broke the law.
Why? Because if you don't apply it retroactively, then the law that was current at the time applies, instead of your brand new law decriminalizing them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Edward Snowden for President 2016
Snowden is too young to run for president. I don't remember exactly, but it will take two or three terms until he is legally eligible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SNOWDEN VS THE FBI'S "SECURITY WATCH"
.
However!... and nevertheless!... a SURE METHOD for Barack to "win the day" on this issue, is to leverage support from Hillary in advance of any effort by him, to publicly turn the tide on the "Snowden affair"! And a clear wedge that Barack can invoke to do this, is to leverage the issue of the FBI's initial slight to Hillary, re her use of private servers and a personal cellphone, to communicate "sensitive government information"!... and thereby, COMPROMISE (SO SAID!) THE SECURITY OF AMERICA, AND AMERICANS!
.
Simply put!... how is the failure of OEMs to produce secure technomae (e.g., Net servers and cellphones!) for ANY AMERICAN, a failure of Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton didn't manufacture the cr*p servers and cellphones being sold in America-- and beyond! It's not her fault that the FBI has "OVERLOOKED" the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of "public technomae" to safeguard American citizens/ netizens!... and whether these are in government, or not!
.
(Note: the "Hillary Cyber debacle" wasn't about some clandestine attempt by Hillary... and company!... to unload US secrets to foreign powers!... and e.g., to "Spectre"!... and the deleted emails issue, NOTWITHSTANDING! This was simply a matter of her use of "less than secure technomae"!)
.
In other words!... what about the rest of us? If such Net servers and cellphones aren't secure for Hillary Clinton... and the US Government!... then they aren't secure for any of us! And so!... we should be demanding of the FBI the same "EXACTITUDE" brought to Hillary Clinton's doorstep, to the respective doorsteps of OEMs doing business in America! And thereby, changing the "political meme_ic spin" from "Feminists Bereft of Insight", to "Federalists Bereft of Investigation"!
.
To sum up... ICT MANUFACTURERS in America-- at least!-- must achieve a higher standard than that being displayed presently! And!... not just to mitigate being an embarrassment to Americans!... let alone, to a prospective candidate for the top job in America!... but, to effect the security that Americans require!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
Very true. The law doesn't care about the reason that classified information was divulged, and he in fact released classified information. I wonder if Obama will pardon Hillary for the same reason?
[ link to this | view in thread ]