4 ms·

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and th

by eli 11y ago

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequate, but I think it's generally a good thing that random government contractors aren't allowed to unilaterally declassify national security programs because they personally don't agree with them. It's easy to imagine examples where this would lead to a very bad situation.

interactive_guy 11y ago
This seems to completely invalidate even the idea of justly disobeying unjust laws. The rule of law as a principle has utility in political philosophy, but saying there can be no exception is arguing for a complete embrace of authoritarianism. And if there's no way for laws to be challenged, then all civil disobedience is illegitimate. I like Hobbes as much as the next guy, but as a society we seem to have moved beyond his idea that the government can do whatever it wants to sustain itself, because it's better than no government. This is not a personal attack, but this argument often infuriates me, because it's similar to people arguing that MLK was a troublemaker, and that the civil rights movement was just "agitators" who refused to play by the rules, even though the game was rigged to destroy them. Why can't people just always obey authority, no matter how wrong, destructive, inhuman, or immoral it may be, amirite?
tracker1 11y ago
While he shouldn't be absolved... he shouldn't be charged with war crimes or espionage in this case. There are many other things he could be charged with allowing for a reasonable defense.
- eli 11y ago
  War crimes? That seems like a stretch. He's charged with theft of gov't property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful disclosure of classified intelligence. You can view the charging document here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar... What is the more appropriate charge you think should have been levied instead?
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Look at section 793... IIRC that can carry the death penalty.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>The rule of law should apply to everyone equally Then start with the little incident that happened around 2008 that did far more damage to the average American. Also, hasn't Obama admitted to smoking pot? He is currently in a far greater position to damage the US and should be thoroughly punished for his crimes. What about Clinton and her emails? And if I started listing the skeletons in the closet of Congress we would be here for weeks. Rule of law has ALWAYS been selectively applied.
- rhodysurf 11y ago
  No one gets arrested for saying they've smoked pot. Its for possession usually. Theres a difference.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
fweespeech 11y ago
> The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Its pretty clear the rule of law doesn't apply to our intelligence services. How about you work on that first before going after the little guy? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10247824/NSA-broke-privacy-laws-thousands-of-times-a-year-according-to-documents-leaked-by-Ed-Snowden.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfa9ada4-81e6-11e4-b9d0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ip7MrjGP http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfa9ada4-81e6-11e4-b9d0-00144feabd... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-informant-crimes-report/2613305/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-inf... Get back to us when all that sees a court room, kay?
danenania 11y ago
Ok, many members of the Bush administration ordered torture and medical experimentation on human beings, a flat out war crime. James Clapper lied under oath to Congress. Hillary Clinton kept classified material on a personal server at her house. These are all serious crimes with plenty of publicly available evidence that they were committed. The people who committed them are all inside the country and easy to find, so charging and arresting them wouldn't be difficult. So where's the outrage from all the "rule of law" folks? Why aren't these well known fugitives ever mentioned alongside Snowden?
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  > many members of the Bush administration ordered torture and medical experimentation on human beings The way you phrased this made me curious, so I looked it up. I don't know if it was your intention, but the way you phrased it made it sound like they were preforming medical procedures, possibly heinous medical procedures. In fact, the experiments were collecting data[0]: "...and crossed the line into human experimentation by collecting and analyzing data that were then used to refine harsh interrogation techniques, including sleep deprivation and waterboarding..." Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it, but I had visions of people having limbs attached to them, superhuman drugs injected into them, and death left and right, like some kind of V for Vendetta shit. This does not seem to be the case. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917950/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917950/
  - gonzo 11y ago
    Full report https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Experiments_in_Torture.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Experiments_in_Torture....
- eli 11y ago
  I think all those people should be investigated and, if there's evidence, prosecuted. I've never said differently. But Hillary Clinton's email server truly has nothing to do with Edward Snowden. She was not involved in the crimes he is alleged to have committed so it has no bearing on his case.
dllthomas 11y ago
The petition was for a pardon. The law allows for pardon. Issuing a pardon would in no way undermine "the rule of law".

by eli 11y ago

interactive_guy 11y ago

This seems to completely invalidate even the idea of justly disobeying unjust laws. The rule of law as a principle has utility in political philosophy, but saying there can be no exception is arguing for a complete embrace of authoritarianism. And if there's no way for laws to be challenged, then all civil disobedience is illegitimate. I like Hobbes as much as the next guy, but as a society we seem to have moved beyond his idea that the government can do whatever it wants to sustain itself, because it's better than no government. This is not a personal attack, but this argument often infuriates me, because it's similar to people arguing that MLK was a troublemaker, and that the civil rights movement was just "agitators" who refused to play by the rules, even though the game was rigged to destroy them. Why can't people just always obey authority, no matter how wrong, destructive, inhuman, or immoral it may be, amirite?

tracker1 11y ago

While he shouldn't be absolved... he shouldn't be charged with war crimes or espionage in this case. There are many other things he could be charged with allowing for a reasonable defense.

eli 11y ago
War crimes? That seems like a stretch. He's charged with theft of gov't property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful disclosure of classified intelligence. You can view the charging document here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar... What is the more appropriate charge you think should have been levied instead?
- tracker1 11y ago
  Look at section 793... IIRC that can carry the death penalty.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>The rule of law should apply to everyone equally Then start with the little incident that happened around 2008 that did far more damage to the average American. Also, hasn't Obama admitted to smoking pot? He is currently in a far greater position to damage the US and should be thoroughly punished for his crimes. What about Clinton and her emails? And if I started listing the skeletons in the closet of Congress we would be here for weeks. Rule of law has ALWAYS been selectively applied.

rhodysurf 11y ago
No one gets arrested for saying they've smoked pot. Its for possession usually. Theres a difference.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

fweespeech 11y ago

> The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Its pretty clear the rule of law doesn't apply to our intelligence services. How about you work on that first before going after the little guy? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10247824/NSA-broke-privacy-laws-thousands-of-times-a-year-according-to-documents-leaked-by-Ed-Snowden.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfa9ada4-81e6-11e4-b9d0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ip7MrjGP http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfa9ada4-81e6-11e4-b9d0-00144feabd... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-informant-crimes-report/2613305/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-inf... Get back to us when all that sees a court room, kay?

danenania 11y ago

Ok, many members of the Bush administration ordered torture and medical experimentation on human beings, a flat out war crime. James Clapper lied under oath to Congress. Hillary Clinton kept classified material on a personal server at her house. These are all serious crimes with plenty of publicly available evidence that they were committed. The people who committed them are all inside the country and easy to find, so charging and arresting them wouldn't be difficult. So where's the outrage from all the "rule of law" folks? Why aren't these well known fugitives ever mentioned alongside Snowden?

irishcoffee 11y ago
> many members of the Bush administration ordered torture and medical experimentation on human beings The way you phrased this made me curious, so I looked it up. I don't know if it was your intention, but the way you phrased it made it sound like they were preforming medical procedures, possibly heinous medical procedures. In fact, the experiments were collecting data[0]: "...and crossed the line into human experimentation by collecting and analyzing data that were then used to refine harsh interrogation techniques, including sleep deprivation and waterboarding..." Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it, but I had visions of people having limbs attached to them, superhuman drugs injected into them, and death left and right, like some kind of V for Vendetta shit. This does not seem to be the case. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917950/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917950/
- gonzo 11y ago
  Full report https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Experiments_in_Torture.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Experiments_in_Torture....
eli 11y ago
I think all those people should be investigated and, if there's evidence, prosecuted. I've never said differently. But Hillary Clinton's email server truly has nothing to do with Edward Snowden. She was not involved in the crimes he is alleged to have committed so it has no bearing on his case.

dllthomas 11y ago

The petition was for a pardon. The law allows for pardon. Issuing a pardon would in no way undermine "the rule of law".