President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong
from the yes-you-can dept
In a big interview with the German media outlet Der Spiegel, President Obama was asked about his interest in pardoning Ed Snowden in response to the big campaign to get him pardoned. Obama's response was that he could not, since Snowden has not been convicted yet:ARD/SPIEGEL: Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden?This is simply incorrect -- as is known to anyone who remembers the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before he had been indicted.
Obama: I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point. I think that Mr. Snowden raised some legitimate concerns. How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community. If everybody took the approach that I make my own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system.
At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself before the legal authorities and make his arguments or have his lawyers make his arguments, then I think those issues come into play. Until that time, what I've tried to suggest -- both to the American people, but also to the world -- is that we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security. Those who pretend that there's no balance that has to be struck and think we can take a 100-percent absolutist approach to protecting privacy don't recognize that governments are going to be under an enormous burden to prevent the kinds of terrorist acts that not only harm individuals, but also can distort our society and our politics in very dangerous ways.
And those who think that security is the only thing and don't care about privacy also have it wrong.
And it appears that the President knows this. Because, as the Pardon Snowden campaign points out, Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans who had not yet stood trial. That happened this year. So for him to say it's impossible to pardon someone who hasn't gone before the court is simply, factually, historically wrong.
And there's a Supreme Court ruling that makes this abundantly clear. 150 years ago, in the ruling on Ex Parte Garland, the Supreme Court stated:
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.Separately, the argument that if Snowden goes to court he can "make his arguments" is also wrong. And President Obama also knows this. The Espionage Act, under which Snowden is charged, does not allow any sort of whistleblower or public interest defense at all.
A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It gives him a new credit and capacity. There is only this limitation to its operation: it does not restore offices forfeited, or property of interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment.
There may be reasons why the President doesn't wish to grant a pardon to Snowden, but his stated reasons are completely bogus.As Snowden’s lawyer, the ACLU’s Ben Wizner has explained, this isn’t hypothetical. When Daniel Ellsberg stood trial under the Espionage Act, his attorney asked him why he decided to leak the Pentagon Papers to journalists. The prosecution objected to the mere question, and the judge sustained the objection. No matter the egregiousness of the government’s actions, a whistleblower’s motivation has no place in an Espionage Act trial.
That means that Snowden wouldn’t be able to explain why he felt the public should know what the NSA was doing, he wouldn’t be able to point to the federal courts that ruled against the NSA in the aftermath of the disclosures, and he wouldn’t be able to cite subsequent advances to cybersecurity. His conviction and severe punishment would be a foregone conclusion.
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 snowden, pardons, president obama
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If this were about Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If this were about Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If this were about Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If this were about Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He just has no intention of doing anything good like that and would rather just go down in history as the President that prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined twice over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never before has the U.S. constitution looked so dated as it does now.
[ 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 ]
Its amazing what he can do with 'a pen and a cellphone' and its equally amazing what he can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Accuse him of what he actually did!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only thing better is people of color stopped whining against pouts as they were doing against w.
We are in bigger hole then before both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Obama administration has gone after and punished more whistle blowers than any other administration in U.S. history and that is saying a lot considering who has sat in the White House.
Manning is in a U.S Military prison, and Snowden would be in a Super Max if the U.S had been able to latch onto him and that is for sure, there is no way Snowden would get a Pardon from Obama.
Snowden opened a lot of peoples eyes with what he leaked to the press, capabilities that US Law Enforcement agencies that were unknown to many and the depth of the ability to capture information the likes have never been seen other than in movies.
Snowden faces living in exile for many many years unfortunately unless he volunteers to come back to the U.S. and I dont think he would relish the thought at coming back to languish in a U.S. Prison for what could be the rest of his life for doing what many see as waking people up to the fact that your privacy doesn't exist it is just an illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pardoning Snowden would be like giving a fried chicken a heart transplant. I am pretty sure that Snowden would have preferred if Obama had actually done anything about the crimes Snowden uncovered. I mean, other than doubling down.
Snowden did what he did for the U.S.A., not for himself. Too bad Obama dropped the ball, stabbed, deflated, and buried it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I saw right through Obama from the get go, warned all that voted for him, and no one listened.
Same goes for Hillary and Trump. Be prepared for another round of balls that people think they were ever holding in the first place.
No balls have dropped at all... and you can take that every which way you please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please square that with this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thus,
You committed no crime until exhausted appeals,
Thus,
You cannot be pardoned for being innocent.
Ken lay of Enron died an innocent man before end of appeals.
slavery was judged legal once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, he's LYING. The man was a constitutional lawyer. He was a teen when Nixon got pardoned. He knows damned well he can pardon whomever he pleases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Beat me to it. Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to suger-coat is or give him the benefit of the doubt here, he's lying and he knows it. He knows damn well he could pardon Snowden, but rather than be honest for once in his gorram presidential term he's claiming that his hands are tied and he just can't unless Snowden is stupid and suicidal enough to come back to the US to stand trial first, rather than admitting that he can but refuses to do so.
Again, for emphasis:
In claiming that he can't pardon Snowden at this point Obama is deliberately and knowingly lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ObamaCon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He knows damned well he can pardon whomever he pleases.
I keep trying to like Obama. I even voted for him (the first time).
But then he does stuff like this.
Can't he at least have the guts to just say NO, rather than play these stupid disingenuous games?
God help Ed Snowden. I'm not sure anybody else is going to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am shocked - shocked I say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it's reasonably possible that he when Obama said "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves", he did not mean "can't legally", but something more like "can't bring myself to" or "can't in good conscience".
Even the existence of past Obama pardons for people who have not stood trial (which is distinct from "gone before the court" if, as seems to be the case based on the story at the provided link, they have e.g. appeared in court and issued not-guilty pleas but simply had not reached trial date yet) does not - quite - entirely eliminate this possibility, both for the reasons implied in the parenthetical and for at least one other reason which I had in mind when I started this sentence and have now lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Obama is lying. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Obama is lying. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pardoning turkeys
Here's how Obama can pardon Snowden with plausible deniability:
1. Create a new NSA compartmentalized program code-named "THANKS TURKEY", which is really the code name for "Edward Snowden".
2. Put out an official pardon of "THANKSGIVING TURKEY" (all caps, of course!), except abbreviate it to THANKS TURKEY in at least one instance.
3. On Jan. 19th, this NSA program is declassified (subject to a FOIA request, of course!), revealing that Snowden was inadvertently pardoned -- due to a bureaucratic screwup -- but that what's done is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're forgetting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're forgetting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're forgetting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is also the question WHY he would want to reward someone who (a) screwed the US intelligence network over almost completely, and (b) didn't have the balls to hang around to face justice for it?
Snowden can come back to the US, face trial, get convicted (because he would without a doubt) and then he can try to get a presidential pardon, perhaps in 4 years with the Donald is on his way out.
Bradley Manning has more of a chance of getting a pardon, but honestly there is no benefit in granting one. It's way too soon to be looking at clemency in a case that has a 35 year sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably NOT.
Try reading it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's the Moscowian Candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You sure don't sound like it.
> He is guilty of treason and he should be imprisoned for it.
How is he guilty of treason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
He blithely released far more information than would have been necessarily to reveal domestic intelligence activities. He went and told the world about every foreign operation the intelligence sector was doing, as far as he knew.
So, he handed critical top-secret information to foreign governments, some of whom seek to do us harm, compromising, when not simply destroying, our operations. "...giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How did he 'betray our country'? He exposed programs that the government was engaged in that the public and even most lawmakers had no idea existed that involved indiscriminate surveillance of the US public.
I don't really see how you can have it both ways, thanking him for exposing the programs while at the same time saying doing so was a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look at what secret court proceedings have given us in the past few years that have only recently been made public knowledge. Things like indefinite and over broad gag orders, massive surveillance of American people by the government, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
see..this is the thing with so many arguments painting snowden as the problem. What these folks fail to acknowledge is that EVERY citizen has a duty, a moral obligation, the very contract with society to tell the truth about corruption.
because so few do that, snowden comes across as an anomaly...a disruptor to your "culture". But it is obviously a mistake to cast him as a traitor. He just had the courage to do what so very few would do, or could do.
two thought:
a. he performed these actions for the benefit of citizens to be informed about misconduct, suspicious activity, unlawful operations, and deceit from ELECTED officials.
b. If you have not actually read the releases and become intimately aware of the operations that he stole and release, it would be perfecting normal (in a manner of speaking) to have this view of him as a criminal. If the most ridiculous views that hold these operations as legitimate even after understanding the problems they create and the unlawful and unconstitutional nature of them still remains, then I will assert, those views are a type of tyranny, similar to the same types of anarchy the same govt officials prefer over the true liberty and freedom duties they are oathed to protect.
3. The privacy versus security debate is for the people to decide. The very reason for the first amendment protections of the press is basically as a last line of defense. It is the intelligence that the freedom of the press that actually provides the check and balance for government actions. When that system is clouded in secrecy, and walls so high are built as to make it unachievable, is why the founders developed such idea about protecting the rights of the press. It was to ensure that at no time, would a tyranny government be capable of escaping the will of the people. In this case, snowden acts as both a citizen and a the press. In both cases, and with his contributions to the intelligence he provides to the citizenry, He must be protected and the information and the actions of the citizens. What it really boils down to, is that the people need to seize its natural and lawful duty to act, and to exert it primary power over the state. That is the essential motivation of snowden, and I argue he is more correct on his consitutional "authority" than those that created these programs and definitely over those that have attempted to create a narrative that it is up to the state to determine these issues. It is a people power issue. Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary
Even though he's going to anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hillary
Except when they are.
Surely you are not so naive that you think everyone is treated equally by the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The president can't pardon someone who hasn't been tried?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The president can't pardon someone who hasn't been tried?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The president can't pardon someone who hasn't been tried?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barack Obama is a compulsive liar...
Slight correction: He is a liar, plain and simple.
YOU HEAR THAT YOU TARBALL PIECE OF GARBAGE? YOU'RE A LYING ASS PIECE OF GODLESS FUCKTARDED SHIT, AND A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE TO THE MONKEY-ASSED CRETINS YOU CALL YOUR "CHILDREN".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barack Obama is a compulsive liar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barack Obama is a compulsive liar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barack Obama is a compulsive liar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barack Obama is a compulsive liar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barack Obama is a compulsive liar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet he will no doubt find a way to pardon Hillary Clinton even though SHE has been convicted of anything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether Obama would pardon him if he *did* present himself is a different question. Based on who he was and what he said *before* assuming office, I would have said yes. But the office clearly changed his views substantially; based on his record over the last 8 years, I'd say there's little chance - though you never know what people will do as their parting shot, as it were. (If I were Snowden, I wouldn't place much faith in that, though.)
-- Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, I know the Internet is all about finding the worst in everything but ... from the article through the responses, everyone is ignoring the obvious English interpretation of what Obama said: "Legally, sure, I could pardon him. But I can't do it; I just can't bring myself to pardon someone who refuses to go through the legal process."
That wouldn't actually change whether or not he's lying, it would just change how he's lying. There is no chance whatsoever at this point that he's unaware of the fact that the law that Snowden would be charged with(The Espionage Act) does not allow motive as a defense. So when he or anyone else claims that Snowden should just come to the US where he(Snowden) can defend his actions and present his side in court they're either deliberately lying or extremely lacking in very important details by leaving off the fact that he could do no such thing.
Snowden, should be ever be suicidal enough to ever come back to the US would not 'go through the legal process', he would be railroaded into a pre-determined guilty verdict, if he wasn't simply shot by some of the more fanatical of those that he's angered(and less you think that's hyperbole a few years back TD had an article where an anonymous government official essentially and on the record fantasied about killing Snowden if they could, and as the previous article made clear that person was/is hardly the only person in the 'Snowden deserves nothing less than death'-club).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Positive Aspects of Obama's Legacy
First black President. That's all folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Positive Aspects of Obama's Legacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Positive Aspects of Obama's Legacy
Racist? You need to recalibrate your racism-sensor. President Obama's race is the POSITIVE aspect of his tenure in the White House. He proved that black men are no worse as Presidents than white ones. That's a valuable piece of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Positive Aspects of Obama's Legacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More fake news stories!
Archer: "Can't... or won't?"
Obama: "Eh, whatever. Let's talk about the scourge of the media lying to the public. We don't know what to fight for."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understandable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
Snowden has weakened the U.S. position around the world and strengthened the position and abilities of other state actors to continue doing what they've been doing, but they now know U.S methodology, agencies, contacts and the tools used.
Snowden has compromised U.S. security, U.S. interests and helped drive a cultural wedge right down the middle of the country, creating distrust with government - firmly aligning with the interests of unfriendly state actors.
Think about it for more than a microsecond from the perspective of any government agency or the people who work there at any level - repeat at any level - and you'll understand that Snowden can't be pardoned as he's done and continues to do irreparable harm by continuing to speak about U.S. policy from Russia soil.
He didn't go to the Washington post and expose state secrets, he shared content with multiple other countries news agencies and who knows who else... He gave them all the cookies.
Snowden also has behaved as though he's above the law and those of elected officials in the U.S.. He chose what secrets to steal, what secrets to reveal and with whom.
He as an individual put himself above every employee of every government and acted as both judge and jury by stealing the data and disclosing what he stole.
Snowden from the perspective of governments is not a hero, is not a whistleblower and could never be considered one. He chose to play all the parts and put himself above the law and due process. Something most U.S. citizens would never give up, that little due process thing.
I could never see Snowden being pardoned or given due process, afterall he didn't give the U.S. due process when he shared what he stole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
Snowden has compromised U.S. security, U.S. interests and helped drive a cultural wedge right down the middle of the country, creating distrust with government - firmly aligning with the interests of unfriendly state actors.
Is that what LOVEINT was supposed to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
But then I guess some are terrified of being reminded of what they have said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
Snowden has weakened the U.S. position around the world and strengthened the position and abilities of other state actors to continue doing what they've been doing, but they now know U.S methodology, agencies, contacts and the tools used.
Snowden has compromised U.S. security, U.S. interests and helped drive a cultural wedge right down the middle of the country, creating distrust with government - firmly aligning with the interests of unfriendly state actors.
Both of which fall under the "It's not my fault for doing it, it's your fault for catching me" category. If the USG finds it a little more difficult to get away with the same actions after having their dirty laundry aired for the public to see that strikes me as the USG's fault, not Snowden's.
Similarly if after exposing the USG's practice of indiscriminate domestic surveilance the public doesn't trust the government as much as the government would like, that's also the government's fault, rather than Snowden's, as all they had to do was not spy on the US public and then not lie, lie, and lie again when they got caught.
(As a side note, given how easy it was for Snowden to simply walk out with who knows how many documents, the idea that government agencies didn't already know is just a wee bit unlikely, meaning the only people who likely learned something new were the politicians not in the know and the public.)
Snowden also has behaved as though he's above the law and those of elected officials in the U.S.. He chose what secrets to steal, what secrets to reveal and with whom.
I certainly hope this line isn't a thinly veiled 'He should have gone through the 'proper channels' rather than going over the heads of those above him', given a) the 'proper channels' are traps meant to catch the well meaning but naive, and b) the handful that did know what was happening were generally in favor of the programs that were exposed, making going to them extremely counter-productive.
Snowden can't be pardoned as he's done and continues to do irreparable harm by continuing to speak about U.S. policy from Russia soil.
If someone in another country talking about what the USG is doing constitutes 'irreparable harm' then the USG is a pathetic joke with or without that person speaking.
I could never see Snowden being pardoned or given due process, afterall he didn't give the U.S. due process when he shared what he stole.
And like that you completely and utterly lose any high ground you might have thought you had. 'He didn't pay attention to the rules(we wrote) so why should we?' is the same kind of mindset displayed by those that think that criminals don't have rights, or that violating them isn't a big deal. At that point the 'rules' and/or ideas like that pesky 'due process' bit lose any legitimacy or respect due, and turn into simply weapons to be used or withheld depending on who's on the receiving end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
This...if the USG had just followed the Constitution, more people would be in the anti-Snowden camp, assuming he would have even had anything to steal and reveal in the first place. Instead, the USG got caught using secret law interpretations and secret courts to trample all over the intent of the 4th Amendment and spy on it's own citizens. That's not even considering how the parallel construction doctrine could be combined with this surveillance to effectively prevent any citizen facing their accuser (which also happens to be another fundamental right in our legal system).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
But the legal system gives it to the accused anyway. That's the difference between a criminal and legitimate government.
I can see which side you're on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
Yup, this is seen daily in the news.
- Stop n' Frisk
- Asset Forfeiture
- Murder of Innocent People
- Crashing the World Economy
- Defrauding the American Public
- list goes on and on ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The US Government's #1 job is to protect our Liberty. The government was completely busy doing the exact opposite of that, and Snowden exposed it. This makes Snowden an absolute patriot and I would still have applauded his efforts if he had to step over dead bodies to do it!
Liberty is far to sacred to sacrifice it at the Altar of Political Expediency, State Secrets, or National Security.
YOU, whomever you are, have fallen victim to the perpetual stupid that pervades the vast majority of Americans and its now defunct and corrupt institutions.
"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Nothing new is under the sun and the US government knows that you are ignorant of history and they take advantage of your cowardice and offer words of protection to subdue your fears. You let the very people that would end you, for nothing more than convenience if it suited them, right in your front door!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perspective: Not everyone thinks Snowden is a hero
cant steal digital things. make copies sure. steal no. YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course he won't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President Obama's Insistence That He Cannot Pardon Snowden
When President Obama insists that he "can't pardon Snowden, he is not necessarily lying. The verb, "can," indicates that one "has the ability" while the negative modifier, "not," (in "can't" = "cannot") indicates that that ability is blocked, or negated. While you read into his statement that the blocking agent is the Constitution, such is not necessarily the caseload. Any number of other factors could be the prohibitive agent (for example, conscience, possible ramifications, precedents, etc.) Based on his further explanation that 1) Snowden's action--in itself--was a violation of the confidential nature of his position with the CIA; 2) Snowden stole classified documents, which he shared with several journalists, who published the; and 3)Snowden fled to avoid prosecution. Based on this information, I suspect that the prohibitive factor Obama's "can't" is his own good conscience. While the result of Snowden's betrayal of his position and of his country was his purported loyalty to--and respect for his countrymen as a whole, Obama is expressing that the end does not justify the means. His concern is that, if he were to reward Snowden with a pardon, then, he would not only be sending the message that other individuals can act according to their individual wills, no matter what the law says. He would also be setting a bad precedent for pardoning other citizens who make such decisions. The United States is a country of laws. If individuals (in this case,willfully)
break those laws, then, they should expect to be punished. That he did a bad thing for a good reason is a defense that remains to be adjudicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: President Obama's Insistence That He Cannot Pardon Snowden
Pres. Obama most certainly CAN, but it's obvious that he will/may not. That's a conscious choice, and it's a pretty poor semantic dodge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always willing to lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always willing to lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Always willing to lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Always willing to lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Always willing to lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Always willing to lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsburg released classified material, and stayed to defend his actions. He stood trial for his crimes - which carried a sentence of 115 years in prison - the charges were ultimately dismissed.
I'm no fan of Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions.
Once again, with feeling:
The law that Snowden would be charged under DOES NOT ALLOW MOTIVE AS A DEFENSE.
Snowden would be legally prohibited from 'defending his actions' in court, it would be entirely based upon 'did he release classified documents or didn't he', and since he himself has admitted that he did the 'trial' would be over before it began.
If he came back to the US he'd be given a 'trial' and then thrown into a hole, likely given the Manning treatment 'for his protection', at which point he could no longer say squat in his defense. People really need to stop acting like 'defending his actions' requires Snowden to show (literally) suicidal level stupidity.
He's already in exile for the rest of his life, stop demanding that he turn himself into a martyr just so the USG can have fun demonstrating (again) what they do to people who make them look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsburg released classified material, and stayed to defend his actions. He stood trial for his crimes - which carried a sentence of 115 years in prison - the charges were ultimately dismissed.
Someone else already pointed out that the Espionage Act doesn't allow Snowden to defend his actions. You bring up Ellsberg -- you should know that he attempted a whistleblower defense and the DOJ objected, and the court agreed, refusing to allow Ellsberg to even mention his reasons.
The dismissal of his case was NOT because he was able to defend his reasons. It was because the government then illegally spied on him and broke into his psychiatrist's office to look at Ellsberg's medical records. The case was dismissed because of gross misconduct by the US government in bringing the case, not because of Ellsberg's defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like pardoning someone for capital punishment when they haven't even even convicted of a capital offense. You actually have to be convicted of a crime before the governor or the president pardons you for that crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden simply cannot be pardoned for a crime that he hasn't been convicted of. Fact is, Snowden committed acts of treason against the United States and even if he had good reasons for doing what he did, he did steal government documents and rather than face the charges in a court of law, he absconded to Russia, seeking asylum.
Snowden is a coward, he isn't a fucking hero. I applaud him for revealing those documents but not in the way he did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Requesting that I be pardoned for a crime I haven't been convicted of is ridiculous on its face.\
In which case some dude named Gerald Ford, I think he was the president of some country called The United States of America is a ridiculous person, because he did exactly that to some other schmuck called Richard Nixon, despite the latter not being convicted.
Object on other grounds if you want but the idea that the president cannot pardon someone who hasn't been convicted is demonstrably wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
David, you need to screw your hand on straight. If I have never been convicted of a crime, it stands to reason that I cannot be pardoned for a crime I have not been convicted on. Requesting that I be pardoned for a crime I haven't been convicted of is ridiculous on its face.
I see you did not even read the article, huh? In it, I note that yes, you can be pardoned pre-conviction. The Supreme Court has said so. Lots of people are pointing to Ford's Nixon pardon as well. But in the article above I also note that Obama himself pardoned some people earlier this year who had not been convicted yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Fact is, Snowden committed acts of treason... he did steal government documents..."
If those are the facts, why can't he be pardoned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If, say, stole them in order to self-aggrandize before his press mistress, he'd have gotten a Petraeus treatment, amounting to a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.
Basically not even a pardon, meaning that he does not need to feel like he owes anybody anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, sorry tinfoil hat nutter... there were no crimes except for the crime that the traitor Snowden committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hillary is dusgusting. Trump is disgusting. Your existence just teetered on the edge of a knifeblade to see which way you would fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I simply don't understand how anyone believes anything he says.
We'd expect journalists to verify, to support their statements before we should believe them, but this cult of Snowden takes everything he says as fact, while still using Google, owning a smart phone and communicating on online sites - weren't those all things he said were compromised?
Seems like belief in the guy fits a narrative, the question is who is behind the narrative, Russia where he currently resides?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Could it be that thing that everything he said verified just fine time and again while the government and NSA had to change their stories on a monthly basis at least?
I find it much more convenient to believe people whose truths aren't constantly running around the next corner and force me to chase them. You just have to keep track of a single story that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whistleblower Man
To those for whom he worked truth was a stranger
With every secret that he takes another rule he breaks
Odds are he won't have that job tomorrow
Whistleblower man, whistleblower man
They've taken 'way your number and given you a name
Beware of the places that you hide
There is no place to hide they can't find
After what you had to say, you had to run away
Odds are you might be in jail tomorrow
Whistleblower man, whistleblower man
They've taken 'way your number and given you a name
Hangin in the Moscow airport one day
Then Putin gives to you asylum next day
You gave the wrong man lip, while giving him the slip
Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow
Whistleblower man, whistleblower man
They've taken 'way your number and given you a name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistleblower Man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistleblower Man
More like criminal who lied to get a job, stole classified documents, and fled to China and Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, Obama isn't lying...
Further, Obama has pledged not to use his pardoning powers in the last days of his term -- and with good reason. If you look at our last three Presidents, each of them has arguably abused their pardoning powers in the last days of their presidency, often to protect their close friends or associates who had committed crimes of various sorts.
I mean, its easy for a bunch of armchair politicians like yourselves to sit back and levy judgement on President Obama for not pardoning Snowden, but you can be sure he's not going to pardon Hillary Clinton either. If you ask me, his not pardoning these people when he so easily could is what shows real strength of character. Rather than bowing to the will of a virulent mass of racists and fools like the rest of this comments section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pardoning Snowden
Well that means he cannot pardon Hillary, right? She's not been convicted of anything. Somehow I suspect that Obama will change the rules again though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pardoning Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one is the nation of the people and the very, very different other is the government. they used to be pretty close to the same country, but they aren't and haven't been for a very long time now. to snowden's unbelievable credit, he chose to stand for the nation of the people, whether we deserve it or not.
hey, you self-called patriots, look at that man. our forefathers were made of his stuff, not obama's. we just saw what the nation of the people think of obama's stuff. he's the biggest disappointment of a whole era of disappointment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. He tried to do the right thing, and succeeded.
2. He tried to stay free, and succeeded.
What an awesome example.
And this is precisely why the criminals in control of US government hate him so much. They are scared shitless of how obvious it is that he did the right thing, and they are powerless to punish him.
As far as a presidential pardon goes, wouldn't that kind of be like the Ghost of Richard Nixon appearing before Mark Felt in 2005 and pardoning him for "ratting him out to those bums at the Washington Post"?
Seriously, though. Pardons are weird. What is it about lame duck US Presidents that gives them Papal authority?
But if we're going to go there, what I really want to see is Chelsea Manning trade places with Dick Cheney. Can Obama make that one happen?
And no, I don't mean Manning needs to get tricked out with all that artificial heart stuff. Not what I mean.
(Also, no. There's no need to surgically install a vagina on Dick Cheney. The world does not need more than one Hillary Clinton.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 20th, 2016 @ 7:40am
Free Chelsea Manning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
balance privacy and security.
> we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security.
is of course also BOGUS, because privacy is actually fundamental to security, and you can't "balance" security against its own foundation. Every move that shrinks privacy will also diminish security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: balance privacy and security.
Any skeptics wishing to test the truth of this should try being homeless for a while. The correlation will make itself abundantly clear.
Any US citizen who buys the US government's self-serving line that it needs you to give up freedom/privacy/what-have-you for security should ask themself why so many Americans are homeless despite the apparent overabundance of "security" fanatics making decisions.
Whatever it is these creeps mean, when they profess to place such value on "security", one thing is certain: it is not the security of the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just what did Snowden do?
We know that Snowden is reputed to have committed espionage. Since it is under seal, who knows what really happened? People are taking sides on an issue they know nothing about. Merely wild claims.
Wouldn't be the first time that the government has knowingly violated its own laws in selecting a victim for harassment, destruction of career, false imprisonment, and assistance in committing "suicide."
Or have you all forgotten wars for personal gain, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and innumerable other instances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is funny stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President Obama still has time to
After that date in January it will be too late for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama can't pardon him, but not why he says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden, pardon
You people have not learned anything in this election! The Democratic party is the party of Government and secrets. They are not the working man's party, they are racist they are elitist, they are outright lying to you! So the Idea of expecting a handout for a vote fits their narrative perfectly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re Snowden, pardon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]