10 ms·

Hillary Clinton Is Wrong About Edward Snowden

242 points by morgante 11y ago

wernercd 11y ago
More correctly: 'liary Clinton is wrong about everything. And if she happens to be right, it's because polling said that was the right answer and she's lying to you to get elected. And there seems to be more opinions saying BS won the debate "hands down" than saying HC did.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- livingparadox 11y ago
  Arab Spring happened 2010[1]... Snowden leaked the information to the Guardian in 2013[2]... 3 years later. Its not possible for this to have caused Arab Spring unless you're including time travel in your conspiracy theory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
- jonhohle 11y ago
  Arab Spring occurred in 2010. Snowden released his information in 2013. How are they connected?
throwaway13337 11y ago
It's disheartening to read that 53% of Americans agree with Hillary and only 26% do not. It's also surprising that ~81% of Americans polled had an opinion at all.
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  That means there is 81% of the public that a powerful orator and good debater can reach with a good argument. It is very disappointing that Bernie Sanders at least did not try to reach that 81%.
- seiji 11y ago
  People believe what they are told. People are tribal and abdicate their beliefs to external sources of "higher powers" of their approved tribes, including what they perceive to be powerful people. Happens in politics, happens on HN. Be more manipulative to change the world.
  - throwaway13337B 11y ago
    If I may contribute to the HN self-righteous tone, so sad that the educated tech savvy elite in these forums get so lost in their smug rush to polarized judgements. Easy to see that Snowden did U.S. citizens a service of exposing where normal checks and balances had failed in the collection of data on Americans. Sure he broke the law to do so, but the benefit is so obvious that a pardon doesn't seem like it should be that politically toxic at all. Also easy to see that giving huge quantities of unvetted secret information to foreign journalists does with near 100% probability put that information in the hands of the Chinese, Russians, or other bad actors (relative to the U.S.). A journalist is a trivial target, as Snowden would absolutely understand. If it can be shown that there is information that impacts national security negatively, then for that subset of the stolen data he should face prison or even death penalty.
    - infamouscow 11y ago
      The OPM breach revealed the identities of every CIA agent and undercover FBI/ATF/DEA agent, but nobody from the Office of Personnel Management is being held accountable for allowing that to happen. Name one bit of information that Snowden exposed that is as harmful.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- blktiger 11y ago
  53% agree that he should stand trial. That's not the same as being convicted. He did break the law, so it stands to reason that he should stand trial. Snowden himself said something similar if I recall, that if he was sure he would stand a _fair_ trial he would return to the US.
  - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
    Exactly. A guy working in the US intelligence service who fled with stolen information to China then Russia is not someone that should automatically be granted clemency. He should be investigated and tried. He might be the hero everyone here and on reddit imagines he is, or he might just be another shady character in geopolitics. It's frustrating to see people so blindly picking sides or misinterpreting opinions.
    - woah 11y ago
      I'm glad to know about the stuff he revealed. Interestingly enough, nobody has any doubt that China and Russia already knew about the extent of public surveillance that Snowden revealed. His most heinous crime was informing the public.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - atmosx 11y ago
      > He might be the hero everyone here and on reddit imagines he is, or he might just be another shady character in geopolitics. This already has been answered by his conduct. Everyone by now has an opinion and no trial is gonna change that. ps. The people here and on reddit are the ones who actually understand what he is talking about. If this crowd stands beside him, that alone says a great deal about him IMO.
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      >"fled with stolen information to China then Russia" Typical misconception, sad to see it on HN. He did not flee to Russia, he got stuck on his way, because the US revoked his passport. Russia was the only country who could stand up to the US. Few other countries dared to offer him asylum. Unfortunate it had to be Russia, given their civil liberties record, but he HAD NO INTENTION of going there.
- lolamerica 11y ago
  Polls are largely unreliable and easily manufactured. First most are done by phone, which limits the pool ( you get mostly old people with land lines) second the wording can dramatically change the results. Essentially polls are just another state manufactured tool of propaganda.
enlightenedfool 11y ago
As a politician, she just reflects popular public opinion. "Right" or "wrong" is what the majority feels, unfortunately. If the public is strongly concerned about privacy, they shouldn't vote for her or likes. The headline should actually read "A majority of Americans are wrong about Edward Snowden"
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  We should expect leaders to lead. Here in Canada last year the majority of the public was (according to polls, 80ish %) on side with the government's very repressive Bill C-51. The only major political party to come out against it was the NDP and all the pundits predicted disaster for them. But they made the case and campaigned it and although the bill passed parliament, the NDP in fact had a major rise in the polls and public opinion swung the other direction and the bill became very unpopular. IHMO the reason we have political parties is to represent polarities of interests and opinions and principles and in a functional democracy the leaders within them should be making the arguments and trying to lead the public so we can hash the debate out in the public sphere. When everybody follows the polls we sink into a quagmire of mediocrity.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    And the NDP has since fallen from those heights in the polling. We (privacy concerned techies) might care about single issues, but the public doesn't (at least not our kind of issues).
    - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
      Yes, that issue has vanished from the public eye for now. It was always hard to make it a focus. But is an example of good effective leadership to do so.
  - mtgx 11y ago
    I guess this is one of those issues where Hillary won't find herself "evolving". I fully expect her to continue and expand all of Obama's surveillance policies. Remember Obama at least seemed to be against all of Bush's spying in his campaign. Clinton is not even pretending to do any of that. That's bad.
cmrdporcupine 11y ago
More disappointing than Clinton's response is Bernie Sander's middling 'respectable' response: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-greer/bernie-sanders-would-make_b_8297414.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-greer/bernie-sanders-woul...
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Why do you think that's disappointing?
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I read this paragraph > "I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American public ... he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that," Sanders said. He went on to say that the role Snowden played in educating the public about violations of their civil liberties should be considered before he is sentenced, and that as president he would "absolutely" end the NSA spying programs in question. and I would have disagreed with the analysis > To read between the lines: Bernie thinks Edward Snowden did the right thing, but hey, laws are laws. If elected, though, it sounds like he'll make sure Snowden gets a really nice jail cell. and said something along the lines of "the political system pardoned President Nixon without even going through the trouble of actually charging him with a crime. If a man like Nixon deserves pardon, I'd say Snowden does as well." But I am not Bernie Sanders and I can't put words in his mouth. He urged Snowden to come home and face trial. This may be a comforting thing for the people at home who watch the 8 PM news but this is not the right thing to do. Not in a nation that pardons people before they are convicted of a crime. No, I don't mean we should dig up Nixon's grave and hang, quarter, and draw his body (I wouldn't oppose doing so to Margaret Thatcher as the UK a historical precedence of such actions but that is off-topic). I don't even want to charge Nixon. All I am saying is there is a way to grant Edward Snowden the same amnesty and immunity that we gave President Nixon. Not because what the the two did were similar but I bring it up just as a demonstration of the things we have forgiven and forgotten as a nation. Edward Snowden did is a huge public service and he deserves our thanks for it. I am not the person above but this is why I am a little disappointed. I am a little concerned about Bernie Sanders saying as president he would "absolutely" end the NSA spying programs in question. Does the POTUS have access to everything that goes on in the NSA? Can't the programs continue/reboot under a different pretense? Worst case, if a president can put the program to sleep, what is to stop the next president to reanimate it?
ck2 11y ago
The whistler-blower angle has been discussed to death and she knows it is complete BS because whistler-blowers in government have an extremely tragic history. She only takes that position so she seems "tough on crime" like so make democrats are afraid to appear otherwise to the "undecided voters" (whomever those idiots are). Just like why she had an email server in her home (which everyone should have) because her husband knows damn well about the six month limit where any government agency can read your email without a warrant, which is why he set it up in the first place. It's a shame she is the only realistic presidential candidate and the only one out of all on both sides who I'd want picking the next few supreme court judges. Everything else coming out of her is basically going to be whatever she thinks is going to get her elected, just like every other candidate. Oh and she'll be the fourth president residing over our war in Afganistan - certainly we'll "win" any one of these years, or decades and when we finally do leave, certainly it won't revert back to what it was before like Iraq, right?
hellofunk 11y ago
It says: >Did Snowden break the law? In passing classified information to reporters, he did. The Espionage Act explicitly prohibits such actions. But this violation surely needs to be balanced against the public service that Snowden carried out in informing the American public about the extent to which their government had been spying on them. I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The laws are either good or bad, but the nation runs because of these laws. You can debate the merits or lack thereof in what Snowden did, because that is a subjective opinion. You cannot debate the laws he broke. You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? It is possible to agree with Snowden's actions while still accepting that he broke laws. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. I see I am downvoted for this, but ironically it is not because I disagree with Snowden. I support what he revealed. But this article is not proper logic, in my opinion. I think it is interesting that Snowden himself prefers to be punished for breaking these laws, and spend his life in prison, rather than live out a life in another country. He accepts that he broke laws, why doesn't everyone else? Hillary's attitude on this is not "wrong" as the article claims. If you are running for president and think that you can excuse the Espionage Act, of all laws, that to me seems like the wrong attitude.
- echion 11y ago
  > I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The usual process is the adversarial legal system in the US, which does allow a fair amount of leeway for changing laws. I think there are a class of bad laws that people think are very difficult to change by this head-on method, however.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple. Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
No remotely electable candidate will have a view that differs much from Hillary. And no, L Lessig is not a remotely electable candidate, outside of our little circles of like minded activists and writers.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
Snowden took classified and sensitive information and went to 2 countries that are the major geopolitical rivals of the United States (and that probably care less about their citizens' privacy). He claims (with no way to verify) that he did not give them any classified information. So Russia and China provided sanctuary to a member of the intelligence community without getting any classified information? Has, even the US done something like that for members ofRussia's or China's intelligence services? I find that very hard to believe. If he had stayed in the United States, he would have had a trial. Even if convicted, I think he would have portrayed as an unequivocal patriot and with the intense pressure would have been pardoned by now. Now, he is seen as a traitor and not without cause.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Has, even the US done something like that for members ofRussia's or China's intelligence services? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_intelligence_personnel_who_defected_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_intelligence_p...
  - IIAOPSW 11y ago
    Not that I disagree with you, but literally everyone in that list did share information with the CIA.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Well, the political climate of the Russia at the time meant they were full defectors and not merely asylum seekers as in Snowden's case. Snowden hasn't actually renounced his citizenship, from what I know.
- lucideer 11y ago
  Chelsea Manning's case may be a very different one for many numerous reasons, but it should at least give some hint as to the general direction proceedings would've taken had Snowden remained in the US. "if convicted" is even a fantastical phrase in this context, without even going on to consider the outrageous idea that there would ever be any vague hope of a pardon.
willholloway 11y ago
There was only one candidate in the first Democratic debate that had the courage to say that Snowden should be brought home a hero, because the government was breaking the law, and that was Lincoln Chafee. He didn't equivocate. And he gave one very stupid, but very honest answer to a question on Glass-Steagall. And he is being mocked for it. Wolf Blitzer took the opportunity to kick him when he was down [1] . If you look at Lincon's Twitter feed he was so excited to be on Wolf Blitzer's show, because he thought he was going to be able to talk about his ideas. He was naive, and that makes him a bad politician. But he had interesting ideas he wanted to talk about even if he knew he couldn't win, namely pardoning Snowden, ending drone strikes and the benefits of switching to the metric system. The only legitimate criticism I can level against him is that he didn't assemble the proper campaign staff that would have prepared him for the debate properly. His answer to the Glass-Steagall question was unfortunate, because we did have one candidate that could have brought attention to Snowden, and the cruelty and futility of drone strike warfare. He hasn't tweeted since the Wolf Blitzer bullying episode. An article has been written that he has disgraced the legacy of his father. [2] I think he deserves thanks for bringing some attention [3] to the response a democratic nation should have to heroes like Snowden. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExMtNDS5hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExMtNDS5hk [2] http://wpri.com/2015/10/15/john-chafee-loyalists-anguished-over-lincoln-chafees-white-house-run/ http://wpri.com/2015/10/15/john-chafee-loyalists-anguished-o... [3] https://www.thenation.com/article/lincoln-chafee-adds-a-proposal-to-the-2016-debate-lets-bring-edward-snowden-home/ https://www.thenation.com/article/lincoln-chafee-adds-a-prop...
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  I was not familiar with Chafee prior to the debate and I liked some of the things he said, but he really did blow the Glass-Steagall question very badly. You don't get to be President by making excuses. He should simply have said "It was a mistake. I did not educate myself properly on the issue before voting, and I regret it." I think everyone would have been fine with that.
- zerooneinfinity 11y ago
  He needs to watch more West Wing -- "If you don't like what they're asking you don't accept the premise of the question." In regards to his interview with Wolf.
throwaway1150 11y ago
>The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, “Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?” The answer really should be "both." Snowden supporters readily tout his commendable whistle-blowing of unlawful domestic intelligence gathering while at the same time ignoring, denying, or outright excusing stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-chinese-servers-seen-as-spy-peril.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-ch... Snowden fled first to China and then afterwards to Russia with as much as a terabyte of classified information, at least some of which--specifically information concerning intelligence operations the NSA conducted against Huawei--we know for a fact he shared with them. Even William Binney, another NSA whistle-blower (who, by contrast, did not seek asylum in two separate major geopolitical adversaries of the US), criticized Snowden's subsequent leaks: >But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service. >So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd... While Binney has since referred to Snowden as a "patriot," he has yet to publicly disavow his past criticisms of Snowden: http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-edward-snowden-2014-10?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-edward-sno...
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I'm not sure what your implication is with the linked article about Huawei.
  - throwaway1150 11y ago
    >The agency pried its way into the servers in Huawei’s sealed headquarters in Shenzhen, China’s industrial heart, according to N.S.A. documents provided by the former contractor Edward J. Snowden
FBT 11y ago
Why does the United States constitution grant the president the power to grant pardons and reprieves? I'd argue that it's for cases exactly like this one. Where someone indeed broke the law, but did the right thing in doing so. We want people to do what is right, not shake our heads tragically and say that the law is the law, and must be followed blindly even if it means punishing a hero for his heroic deeds. I'd further say that it's the responsibility of the president to use his or her constitutionally granted powers for this purpose, and say that a president that refuses to use the powers of the presidency for the purpose they were intended for is a simply bad at the job of being president.
- engx 11y ago
  If Obama doesn't pardon him, he'll make a huge tactical error for his legacy and of course, failing to do what is simple right. There are a few advocating this, and more will be vocal as it gets closer to the end of his term.
  - insideoutside 11y ago
    Perhaps they have a filter on their emails but the format is: jdoe@who.eop.gov for "John Doe" (WHO.EOP = White House, Executive Office of President)
- pjc50 11y ago
  So far as I can tell, the presidential pardon system is used primarily for insider villans, not outsider heroes. Such as "Scooter" Libby.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Snowden didn't break the law. He uncovered other people breaking the law. If it is illegal to do something (like the NSA surveillance techniques) and that something is done then the rest of the laws surrounding state secrets automatically become devoid. That is the only way a sane working democratic society can function. If it is illegal to uncovered illegality then it sets a precedent that every witness to a crime will have to be tried as a defendant. The Snowden situation is absurd and anyone who says he broke the law is revealing themselves as the enemy of the people and of the country.
joesmo 11y ago
Who cares if Snowden broke the law if our own country is no longer ruled by law? I hear a lot of talk of whether Snowden should be punished or whether he should get a trial, but no talk about the punishment for the NSA. Until I see someone from the NSA going to jail for life, these kinds of questions are moot.
vacri 11y ago
It's sad that even after all this time, the diversionary topic "hero or traitor?" gets more attention than the actual issues exposed.

242 points by morgante 11y ago

More correctly: 'liary Clinton is wrong about everything. And if she happens to be right, it's because polling said that was the right answer and she's lying to you to get elected. And there seems to be more opinions saying BS won the debate "hands down" than saying HC did.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

livingparadox 11y ago
Arab Spring happened 2010[1]... Snowden leaked the information to the Guardian in 2013[2]... 3 years later. Its not possible for this to have caused Arab Spring unless you're including time travel in your conspiracy theory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
jonhohle 11y ago
Arab Spring occurred in 2010. Snowden released his information in 2013. How are they connected?

throwaway13337 11y ago

It's disheartening to read that 53% of Americans agree with Hillary and only 26% do not. It's also surprising that ~81% of Americans polled had an opinion at all.

cmrdporcupine 11y ago
That means there is 81% of the public that a powerful orator and good debater can reach with a good argument. It is very disappointing that Bernie Sanders at least did not try to reach that 81%.
seiji 11y ago
People believe what they are told. People are tribal and abdicate their beliefs to external sources of "higher powers" of their approved tribes, including what they perceive to be powerful people. Happens in politics, happens on HN. Be more manipulative to change the world.
- throwaway13337B 11y ago
  If I may contribute to the HN self-righteous tone, so sad that the educated tech savvy elite in these forums get so lost in their smug rush to polarized judgements. Easy to see that Snowden did U.S. citizens a service of exposing where normal checks and balances had failed in the collection of data on Americans. Sure he broke the law to do so, but the benefit is so obvious that a pardon doesn't seem like it should be that politically toxic at all. Also easy to see that giving huge quantities of unvetted secret information to foreign journalists does with near 100% probability put that information in the hands of the Chinese, Russians, or other bad actors (relative to the U.S.). A journalist is a trivial target, as Snowden would absolutely understand. If it can be shown that there is information that impacts national security negatively, then for that subset of the stolen data he should face prison or even death penalty.
  - infamouscow 11y ago
    The OPM breach revealed the identities of every CIA agent and undercover FBI/ATF/DEA agent, but nobody from the Office of Personnel Management is being held accountable for allowing that to happen. Name one bit of information that Snowden exposed that is as harmful.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
blktiger 11y ago
53% agree that he should stand trial. That's not the same as being convicted. He did break the law, so it stands to reason that he should stand trial. Snowden himself said something similar if I recall, that if he was sure he would stand a _fair_ trial he would return to the US.
- BookmarkSaver 11y ago
  Exactly. A guy working in the US intelligence service who fled with stolen information to China then Russia is not someone that should automatically be granted clemency. He should be investigated and tried. He might be the hero everyone here and on reddit imagines he is, or he might just be another shady character in geopolitics. It's frustrating to see people so blindly picking sides or misinterpreting opinions.
  - woah 11y ago
    I'm glad to know about the stuff he revealed. Interestingly enough, nobody has any doubt that China and Russia already knew about the extent of public surveillance that Snowden revealed. His most heinous crime was informing the public.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - atmosx 11y ago
    > He might be the hero everyone here and on reddit imagines he is, or he might just be another shady character in geopolitics. This already has been answered by his conduct. Everyone by now has an opinion and no trial is gonna change that. ps. The people here and on reddit are the ones who actually understand what he is talking about. If this crowd stands beside him, that alone says a great deal about him IMO.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    >"fled with stolen information to China then Russia" Typical misconception, sad to see it on HN. He did not flee to Russia, he got stuck on his way, because the US revoked his passport. Russia was the only country who could stand up to the US. Few other countries dared to offer him asylum. Unfortunate it had to be Russia, given their civil liberties record, but he HAD NO INTENTION of going there.
lolamerica 11y ago
Polls are largely unreliable and easily manufactured. First most are done by phone, which limits the pool ( you get mostly old people with land lines) second the wording can dramatically change the results. Essentially polls are just another state manufactured tool of propaganda.

enlightenedfool 11y ago

As a politician, she just reflects popular public opinion. "Right" or "wrong" is what the majority feels, unfortunately. If the public is strongly concerned about privacy, they shouldn't vote for her or likes. The headline should actually read "A majority of Americans are wrong about Edward Snowden"

cmrdporcupine 11y ago
We should expect leaders to lead. Here in Canada last year the majority of the public was (according to polls, 80ish %) on side with the government's very repressive Bill C-51. The only major political party to come out against it was the NDP and all the pundits predicted disaster for them. But they made the case and campaigned it and although the bill passed parliament, the NDP in fact had a major rise in the polls and public opinion swung the other direction and the bill became very unpopular. IHMO the reason we have political parties is to represent polarities of interests and opinions and principles and in a functional democracy the leaders within them should be making the arguments and trying to lead the public so we can hash the debate out in the public sphere. When everybody follows the polls we sink into a quagmire of mediocrity.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  And the NDP has since fallen from those heights in the polling. We (privacy concerned techies) might care about single issues, but the public doesn't (at least not our kind of issues).
  - cmrdporcupine 11y ago
    Yes, that issue has vanished from the public eye for now. It was always hard to make it a focus. But is an example of good effective leadership to do so.
- mtgx 11y ago
  I guess this is one of those issues where Hillary won't find herself "evolving". I fully expect her to continue and expand all of Obama's surveillance policies. Remember Obama at least seemed to be against all of Bush's spying in his campaign. Clinton is not even pretending to do any of that. That's bad.

cmrdporcupine 11y ago

More disappointing than Clinton's response is Bernie Sander's middling 'respectable' response: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-greer/bernie-sanders-would-make_b_8297414.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-greer/bernie-sanders-woul...

scrollaway 11y ago
Why do you think that's disappointing?
- newjersey 11y ago
  I read this paragraph > "I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American public ... he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that," Sanders said. He went on to say that the role Snowden played in educating the public about violations of their civil liberties should be considered before he is sentenced, and that as president he would "absolutely" end the NSA spying programs in question. and I would have disagreed with the analysis > To read between the lines: Bernie thinks Edward Snowden did the right thing, but hey, laws are laws. If elected, though, it sounds like he'll make sure Snowden gets a really nice jail cell. and said something along the lines of "the political system pardoned President Nixon without even going through the trouble of actually charging him with a crime. If a man like Nixon deserves pardon, I'd say Snowden does as well." But I am not Bernie Sanders and I can't put words in his mouth. He urged Snowden to come home and face trial. This may be a comforting thing for the people at home who watch the 8 PM news but this is not the right thing to do. Not in a nation that pardons people before they are convicted of a crime. No, I don't mean we should dig up Nixon's grave and hang, quarter, and draw his body (I wouldn't oppose doing so to Margaret Thatcher as the UK a historical precedence of such actions but that is off-topic). I don't even want to charge Nixon. All I am saying is there is a way to grant Edward Snowden the same amnesty and immunity that we gave President Nixon. Not because what the the two did were similar but I bring it up just as a demonstration of the things we have forgiven and forgotten as a nation. Edward Snowden did is a huge public service and he deserves our thanks for it. I am not the person above but this is why I am a little disappointed. I am a little concerned about Bernie Sanders saying as president he would "absolutely" end the NSA spying programs in question. Does the POTUS have access to everything that goes on in the NSA? Can't the programs continue/reboot under a different pretense? Worst case, if a president can put the program to sleep, what is to stop the next president to reanimate it?

ck2 11y ago

The whistler-blower angle has been discussed to death and she knows it is complete BS because whistler-blowers in government have an extremely tragic history. She only takes that position so she seems "tough on crime" like so make democrats are afraid to appear otherwise to the "undecided voters" (whomever those idiots are). Just like why she had an email server in her home (which everyone should have) because her husband knows damn well about the six month limit where any government agency can read your email without a warrant, which is why he set it up in the first place. It's a shame she is the only realistic presidential candidate and the only one out of all on both sides who I'd want picking the next few supreme court judges. Everything else coming out of her is basically going to be whatever she thinks is going to get her elected, just like every other candidate. Oh and she'll be the fourth president residing over our war in Afganistan - certainly we'll "win" any one of these years, or decades and when we finally do leave, certainly it won't revert back to what it was before like Iraq, right?

hellofunk 11y ago

It says: >Did Snowden break the law? In passing classified information to reporters, he did. The Espionage Act explicitly prohibits such actions. But this violation surely needs to be balanced against the public service that Snowden carried out in informing the American public about the extent to which their government had been spying on them. I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The laws are either good or bad, but the nation runs because of these laws. You can debate the merits or lack thereof in what Snowden did, because that is a subjective opinion. You cannot debate the laws he broke. You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? It is possible to agree with Snowden's actions while still accepting that he broke laws. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. I see I am downvoted for this, but ironically it is not because I disagree with Snowden. I support what he revealed. But this article is not proper logic, in my opinion. I think it is interesting that Snowden himself prefers to be punished for breaking these laws, and spend his life in prison, rather than live out a life in another country. He accepts that he broke laws, why doesn't everyone else? Hillary's attitude on this is not "wrong" as the article claims. If you are running for president and think that you can excuse the Espionage Act, of all laws, that to me seems like the wrong attitude.

echion 11y ago
> I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The usual process is the adversarial legal system in the US, which does allow a fair amount of leeway for changing laws. I think there are a class of bad laws that people think are very difficult to change by this head-on method, however.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple. Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

No remotely electable candidate will have a view that differs much from Hillary. And no, L Lessig is not a remotely electable candidate, outside of our little circles of like minded activists and writers.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago

Snowden took classified and sensitive information and went to 2 countries that are the major geopolitical rivals of the United States (and that probably care less about their citizens' privacy). He claims (with no way to verify) that he did not give them any classified information. So Russia and China provided sanctuary to a member of the intelligence community without getting any classified information? Has, even the US done something like that for members ofRussia's or China's intelligence services? I find that very hard to believe. If he had stayed in the United States, he would have had a trial. Even if convicted, I think he would have portrayed as an unequivocal patriot and with the intense pressure would have been pardoned by now. Now, he is seen as a traitor and not without cause.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Has, even the US done something like that for members ofRussia's or China's intelligence services? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_intelligence_personnel_who_defected_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_intelligence_p...
- IIAOPSW 11y ago
  Not that I disagree with you, but literally everyone in that list did share information with the CIA.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Well, the political climate of the Russia at the time meant they were full defectors and not merely asylum seekers as in Snowden's case. Snowden hasn't actually renounced his citizenship, from what I know.
lucideer 11y ago
Chelsea Manning's case may be a very different one for many numerous reasons, but it should at least give some hint as to the general direction proceedings would've taken had Snowden remained in the US. "if convicted" is even a fantastical phrase in this context, without even going on to consider the outrageous idea that there would ever be any vague hope of a pardon.

willholloway 11y ago

There was only one candidate in the first Democratic debate that had the courage to say that Snowden should be brought home a hero, because the government was breaking the law, and that was Lincoln Chafee. He didn't equivocate. And he gave one very stupid, but very honest answer to a question on Glass-Steagall. And he is being mocked for it. Wolf Blitzer took the opportunity to kick him when he was down [1] . If you look at Lincon's Twitter feed he was so excited to be on Wolf Blitzer's show, because he thought he was going to be able to talk about his ideas. He was naive, and that makes him a bad politician. But he had interesting ideas he wanted to talk about even if he knew he couldn't win, namely pardoning Snowden, ending drone strikes and the benefits of switching to the metric system. The only legitimate criticism I can level against him is that he didn't assemble the proper campaign staff that would have prepared him for the debate properly. His answer to the Glass-Steagall question was unfortunate, because we did have one candidate that could have brought attention to Snowden, and the cruelty and futility of drone strike warfare. He hasn't tweeted since the Wolf Blitzer bullying episode. An article has been written that he has disgraced the legacy of his father. [2] I think he deserves thanks for bringing some attention [3] to the response a democratic nation should have to heroes like Snowden. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExMtNDS5hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExMtNDS5hk [2] http://wpri.com/2015/10/15/john-chafee-loyalists-anguished-over-lincoln-chafees-white-house-run/ http://wpri.com/2015/10/15/john-chafee-loyalists-anguished-o... [3] https://www.thenation.com/article/lincoln-chafee-adds-a-proposal-to-the-2016-debate-lets-bring-edward-snowden-home/ https://www.thenation.com/article/lincoln-chafee-adds-a-prop...

ScottBurson 11y ago
I was not familiar with Chafee prior to the debate and I liked some of the things he said, but he really did blow the Glass-Steagall question very badly. You don't get to be President by making excuses. He should simply have said "It was a mistake. I did not educate myself properly on the issue before voting, and I regret it." I think everyone would have been fine with that.
zerooneinfinity 11y ago
He needs to watch more West Wing -- "If you don't like what they're asking you don't accept the premise of the question." In regards to his interview with Wolf.

throwaway1150 11y ago

>The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, “Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?” The answer really should be "both." Snowden supporters readily tout his commendable whistle-blowing of unlawful domestic intelligence gathering while at the same time ignoring, denying, or outright excusing stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-chinese-servers-seen-as-spy-peril.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-ch... Snowden fled first to China and then afterwards to Russia with as much as a terabyte of classified information, at least some of which--specifically information concerning intelligence operations the NSA conducted against Huawei--we know for a fact he shared with them. Even William Binney, another NSA whistle-blower (who, by contrast, did not seek asylum in two separate major geopolitical adversaries of the US), criticized Snowden's subsequent leaks: >But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service. >So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd... While Binney has since referred to Snowden as a "patriot," he has yet to publicly disavow his past criticisms of Snowden: http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-edward-snowden-2014-10?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-edward-sno...

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I'm not sure what your implication is with the linked article about Huawei.
- throwaway1150 11y ago
  >The agency pried its way into the servers in Huawei’s sealed headquarters in Shenzhen, China’s industrial heart, according to N.S.A. documents provided by the former contractor Edward J. Snowden

FBT 11y ago

Why does the United States constitution grant the president the power to grant pardons and reprieves? I'd argue that it's for cases exactly like this one. Where someone indeed broke the law, but did the right thing in doing so. We want people to do what is right, not shake our heads tragically and say that the law is the law, and must be followed blindly even if it means punishing a hero for his heroic deeds. I'd further say that it's the responsibility of the president to use his or her constitutionally granted powers for this purpose, and say that a president that refuses to use the powers of the presidency for the purpose they were intended for is a simply bad at the job of being president.

engx 11y ago
If Obama doesn't pardon him, he'll make a huge tactical error for his legacy and of course, failing to do what is simple right. There are a few advocating this, and more will be vocal as it gets closer to the end of his term.
- insideoutside 11y ago
  Perhaps they have a filter on their emails but the format is: jdoe@who.eop.gov for "John Doe" (WHO.EOP = White House, Executive Office of President)
pjc50 11y ago
So far as I can tell, the presidential pardon system is used primarily for insider villans, not outsider heroes. Such as "Scooter" Libby.
rorykoehler 11y ago
Snowden didn't break the law. He uncovered other people breaking the law. If it is illegal to do something (like the NSA surveillance techniques) and that something is done then the rest of the laws surrounding state secrets automatically become devoid. That is the only way a sane working democratic society can function. If it is illegal to uncovered illegality then it sets a precedent that every witness to a crime will have to be tried as a defendant. The Snowden situation is absurd and anyone who says he broke the law is revealing themselves as the enemy of the people and of the country.

joesmo 11y ago

Who cares if Snowden broke the law if our own country is no longer ruled by law? I hear a lot of talk of whether Snowden should be punished or whether he should get a trial, but no talk about the punishment for the NSA. Until I see someone from the NSA going to jail for life, these kinds of questions are moot.

vacri 11y ago

It's sad that even after all this time, the diversionary topic "hero or traitor?" gets more attention than the actual issues exposed.