16 ms·

Edward Snowden makes 'moral' case for presidential pardon

295 points by Red_Tarsius 10y ago

gumby 10y ago
I hope it happens! I wonder what his life would be like upon his return. I suspect his life would still be in danger.
CyberDildonics 10y ago
I hope he gets it, but he'll probably have to donate $100 grand to the Clinton foundation like everyone else.
lb1lf 10y ago
Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon? Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors? Or may a presidential pardon be reversed by any successor? Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?) Hm. Off to Google I go; I find the concept somewhat intriguing.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yes, Snowden could be pardoned preemptively and expansively. That's how Ford pardoned Nixon. No, a pardon could not be reversed by a future president (else: Ford could not truly have pardoned Nixon). There's SCOTUS precedent on both of these.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    For clarity: When you say "preemptively", you mean in advance of trial or even indictment. So far as I'm aware, the President cannot issue a pardon in advance of the crime.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  The President of the United States has the almost unqualified power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States, whether current or past, whether unindicted or convicted.
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    Which is a hangover from the more corrupt days if Obama wants to go down in history again he ought to forgo any pardons except for those of miscarriage of justice agreed by the supreme court.
    - pc86 10y ago
      A hangover from the more corrupt days of the 1770s? Not sure what in the world you're trying to say here, honestly.
      - lostboys67 10y ago
        No offense intended America politicians get away with naughty shit that would get you 5 years in jail in the UK. political. Let alone the whole machine system which is well with living memory and handing out ambassadorships to mates instead of professional diplomats doesn't look good.
  - eastbayjake 10y ago
    I came to comment that Snowden's request for pardon would presumably require a conviction, but on further research you're right that the president's pardon powers are "unlimited" -- even before legal proceedings have begun: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
- chiph 10y ago
  President Obama could certainly pardon him without any qualifications. Which is not to say that some people in government wouldn't use their bureaucratic powers to harass him once he returns because they dislike what he did. For example, he might get the run-around when renewing his driver's license: "Oh, we need to see your prescription from your optician before we can put your eyeglass restriction on your license" (obviously not true but he won't get his license until he complies)
  - 91bananas 10y ago
    Which assumes someone at the DMV would be cooperative with another human. Slim chance of this
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Clintons pardon of Marc Rich happened on his last day in office. I seem to recall the Wikipedia article speculating on the checks and balances available if Marc Rich actually did return to the US You should check that out
  - yes_or_gnome 10y ago
    Most pardons happen on the last day of office. Also, there are 'pocket vetos' where the acting president either doesn't want to outright veto to alienate his party or wants to see the election results before making a final decision. Either way, the President ends up vetoing or signing controversial bills in their last few months in office. I seem to recall there was a president that forgot to veto some bills and the next president signed them. I think there was even a Supreme Court case that held the laws as constitutional.
    - mcherm 10y ago
      Correction: a few controversial pardons happen on the last day of office. The majority of presidential pardons flow through the normal process where a person applies for the pardon, has their case reviewed by a team formed for this purpose. Obama stands out as one of the presidents who has issued the FEWEST pardons, although he says he may change that. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/obama-says-he-will-catch-up-on-pardons-but-hes-far-behind http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/obama-says-he...
- giardini 10y ago
  lb1lf: "how powerful is a presidential pardon?" The president can pardon offenses of federal law. A state's governor can pardon offenses of that particular state's laws.
- wmil 10y ago
  It's incredibly powerful. The President can actually pardon entire classes of people. Carter issued a pardon to all draft dodgers. Ford had previously issued a limited pardon to some. Obama could actually commute the sentences of everyone serving a sentence strictly for marijuana possession to time served.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    The only limit is that it doesn't apply to state crimes.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  There's a Clancy novel built around the concept of a private spy agency with blank-check pardons for future actions from a President.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    That idea also figured heavily in one of the Jack Bauer TV shows. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of lawyers over beers about it once. As far as anyone could tell, there's no precedent to suggest that that it would work, but none to say that it wouldn't work, either. If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. The sticky situation would be if you got an advance pardon and then did something really heinous, such that the President who gave the original blank-check pardon objected on the basis that the conduct wasn't meant to be covered. You'd be on thin ice then.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. If the President is still in office, as head of the executive branch he can prevent prosecution even if there is no pardon, and, anyway, he could just issue a new and properly retrospective pardon. A pardon that's only good if the President that issued it is still in office and still agrees with it is exactly the same as no pardon at all. The pardon power is only meaningful because it is binding on the federal government, and not just as long as the current President is in power, but forever (or, at least, until the Constitution is amended to change its status.) AFAICT, the general consensus among those who study Constitutional law is that prospective pardons (those for crimes not yet committed when the pardon is issued) are nullities; for there to be a crime for a pardon or reprieve to apply to, it must have been committed (even if it has not been discovered) when the pardon is issued. But because no prospective pardons have been issued and then their effect challenged in court, this has never been litigated, and there is no case law on the subject. (But if prospective pardons were possible, given the established breadth of the pardon power in other aspects, it would mean that the President could essentially prevent the US government from ever adopting -- or, rather, ever enforcing -- certain criminal laws that do not yet exist, simply by issuing prospective pardons for any offenses resulting from particular classes of conduct that he doesn't want to ever be criminalized.)
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon? It is absolute. > Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors? No, a pardon only affects criminal prosecutions and punishments -- to the extent covered by the text of the pardon, any future prosecution (or continuation of existing prosecution) is barred, and any criminal punishment (including and disabilities imposed by past conviction) is terminated. It doesn't affect any other action by the government, including any civil action that might be available in law. > Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?) It can be as narrow or broad as the President chooses. About the only limit is that it is generally held (though this has never had occasion to be tested) that the Constitutional power of the pardon does not extend to prospective pardons (that is, a pardon cannot apply to offenses that occur after the pardon is issued.)
  - okwhatthe2 10y ago
    If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.
  - okwhatthe2 10y ago
    If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.
  - BrandonY 10y ago
    One more limitation: a Presidential pardon doesn't affect state laws. If, for instance, Snowden had committed some crime against the state that he was residing in, the President would not forgive it.
dhimes 10y ago
Jesus Christ the site has 14 trackers as reported by Ghostery. SMH.
- tempodox 10y ago
  Is that more than usual? The NSA has your number, anyway.
  - dhimes 10y ago
    Ha! Yeah, 14 is quite impressive.
    - talmand 10y ago
      In my experience 14 is light.
aluhut 10y ago
I really hope he'll be able to leave Russia one day but if I were him, I wouldn't return to the US. Too many people with weird ideas in their heads.
- pc86 10y ago
  Not a trait confined to the United States by any stretch.
  - pm90 10y ago
    That's true. I guess what the OP meant is that trait + being known in the US is what puts Snowden at greater risk in the US.
  - avn2109 10y ago
    The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation/abduction/assassination (while also surveilling him) to make sure they get to keep sticking their finger in America's eye. If he leaves the Eastern bloc you can bet that the boys in Fort Meade will make contingency plans to sabotage his brakes/get him on trumped-up charges for something else a la Assange/otherwise ruin his day.
    - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
      >The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation that's a double edged sword; if the Russian leaders decide some day that they want to improve relations with the US by extraditing him then they might just do it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tptacek 10y ago
My guess is, his flight from the US is going to prevent his pardon. A pardon was a long shot no matter what, but a preemptive pardon of a fugitive would be without historical precedent.
- finid 10y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton pardon a guy who ran to another country to avoid prosecution here (USA)?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yeah, Mark Rich. Ok, not without precedent. (Mark Rich cooperated and was pardoned conditionally, for whatever that's worth).
  - parenthesis 10y ago
    Yes, Marc Rich.
- nabla9 10y ago
  Carter's pardon for draft dodgers was preemptive pardon for hundreas of thousands of fugitives, many of them who left the country. 50,000 never returned even after pardon. There has been some other preemptive pardons: pardons for Richard Nixon and Caspar Weinberger at least.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Preemptive pardons are definitely not without precedent.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      The point was that preemptive pardons for fugitives is also not without precedent, as you claimed.
      - 10y ago
us0r 10y ago
At the very least he should get a David Petraeus deal (who was trading classified information for sex).
- zip1234 10y ago
  The scale of what Petraeus did vs what Snowden did is very different.
  - msandford 10y ago
    Yeah, agreed! Snowden gave reporters a lot of information which was then released to the American people on the quite probably illegal activities of their "security" apparatus. Petraeus had an affair with a reporter. One of those things made it possible for Americans to know what their government was/is doing with great personal risk to the whistleblower. The other....didn't.
  - us0r 10y ago
    I don't think scale is written into the law.
    - zip1234 10y ago
      While I can't speak to whether or not it is written into the law, there is historical precedent on the matter. Look up Clayton Lonetree for one where the scale was low. He was given a shorter sentence than is typical of espionage. Look up Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen for someone where the damage was estimated to be much greater.
- knodi123 10y ago
  > who was trading classified information for sex That's really not how I read the scandal. A woman, who formerly had clearance for classified material, was engaged in an illicit affair. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that 1.) the classified information was ever leaked to someone without clearance, and 2.) that any actual trading occurred.
krokodil 10y ago
He'll never get it. He lost any hope of whistle-blower status when he released information on foreign surveillance programs.
- finid 10y ago
  You must be one of those very "patriotic" Americans. The man sacrificed his freedom so yours may last.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Try to keep in mind that reasonable people disagree about Snowden, and remain civil in conversations about him.
    - pc86 10y ago
      Hell I disagree with myself about it.
  - actsasbuffoon 10y ago
    I think you might be jumping the gun on that conclusion. Grand parent may have been describing how things are, not how they think the world should be.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The government lost any hope of moral high-ground by performing illegal surveillance amongst many other things. It is not reasonable to expect Snowden to selectively only release information that was strictly illegal (due to sheer number of files to sort through) and it is reasonable for someone to whistle-blow through unofficial channels when official ones are not available (and they weren't despite many people trying to advocate that they were - save your breath). Here's an idea - don't do horrifically illegal, amoral things alongside other legal but probably still amoral things, quash all possibilities of accountability, and expect that no one will call you out on it. Snowden did the right thing, and the only thing that could have been done.
finid 10y ago
He makes a good case for the pardon, but Obama won't give it. Why? Snowden doesn't have enough powerful forces in high places that will push for the pardon. If he has friends like Jonathan Jay Pollard has, chances are he'll get it, but he doesn't.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Obama has granted pardons or clemency to well over 100 people while in office. He has directed the DOJ to fill the pipeline of clemency cases for him to review before he leaves office, with a focus on people sentenced under harsher guidelines that were revised while he was in office. Obama won't pardon Snowden not because Snowden doesn't have the right friends. He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. Everyone can get behind pardoning someone sentenced to life for shoplifting under a three strikes law. Snowden is much more divisive.
  - hollander 10y ago
    He cannot pardon him right now. That would be too controversial in the US, and it might reflect on Clinton. But after the elections, or in the last month of his presidency, he might do this without consequenses.
  - finid 10y ago
    > He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The bigger problem is that Snowden hasn't even been interrogated by the federal government, let alone tried, so it's difficult to really know what they'd be pardoning him for. Publishing the leaks is one thing, but if he's given access to foreign powers to information that has not been made public, that's another. In the Marc Rich case, Clinton had a pretty good idea of what the upper bound of the crime being excused was. Also: he shouldn't have pardoned Rich, is I think the consensus at this point.
Red_Tarsius 10y ago
I admire Snowden's sacrifice, but the US can't pardon him. Doing so would signify weakness and encourage subversive behaviour. Traditionalist countries – China, Russia, Iran – are especially perceptive to status signaling. No doubt they would exploit the event to foster Anti-American sentiments. Also, we don't know the info Russian Intelligence got out of his asylum in Moscow. Side note: I hope GMT Games releases an expansion for Twlight Struggle: 1989 ~ 2015. Despite the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has never stopped. I'd love to re-enact the past 25 years. Snowden flees to Moscow would be a Red Event, 2 ops: "US reveals their hand of cards this turn. Remove up to a total of 2 US Influence from one or more countries to Western Europe". EDIT: to clarify, I do want the US to grant him pardon.
- eru 10y ago
  The proxy war might have never stopped, but what stopped was people taking Russia serious as _the_ second power on the globe. They lost that top spot.
- hollander 10y ago
  This is so much letting other people or countries decide what you should do. The Land of the Free should make its own decisions, no matter what China or Russia finds. In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means. Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
tempodox 10y ago
Why would Obama suddenly stop whistleblower persecution? It's the one thing he will be famous for. And you can't ruin a bad reputation.
lordnacho 10y ago
I bet everyone's been digging for precedent. Found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Loring_Morison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Loring_Morison Samuel Loring Morison (born October 30, 1944) is a former American intelligence professional, who was convicted of espionage and theft of government property in 1985, and pardoned in 2001. He was "the only [American] government official ever convicted for giving classified information to the press." Seems pretty similar superficially. I wonder if he'll do it, Obama. Also something quite odd is the number of pardons that seem a bit suspect. For instance Clinton pardoned his own brother. And Marc Rich. Think what you may of him (famous commodity trader, lots of shady deals rumoured), but his crime doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Pardoning Snowden would be a comment on the surveillance state, something worthwhile to talk about. Pardoning some guy who smuggled some oil doesn't seem to have a purpose in regards to the state's role in society.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  I wonder how much practical difference it would make to pardon Snowden. It's likely not safe for him to return to the United States anyways.
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  > state's role in society You may have just blown Hayden's mind.
- talmand 10y ago
  Considering the Obama administration's actions towards whistle blowers, despite promising to be highly transparent, suggests Snowden will not be pardoned any time soon.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    In his place, I'd only pardon Snowden and Manning after the election is decided.
    - talmand 10y ago
zmanian 10y ago
Reasons it would be in the interests of the US govt to pardon Snowden: - It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile. - It would remove incentives for Snowden to constantly amplify inconsistent/ hypocritical behavior of the US govt. - It would improve the optics for the tech industry for working more closely with government. Reasons it would be against Us govt interests. - It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > It would improve the optics Way off topic: is it just me, or did this particular usage of the faux-technical word "optics" spike this election cycle? To me, it reeks of punditry and/or snootiness (no offense) and rubs me the wrong way.
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  They would be mad too at the mean man who took their secrets and didn't follow the rules. How dare he do that you know? What cause could possibly be greater than the intelligence community?
- zeveb 10y ago
  It would weaken the incentives against leaking national-security information. Of course, that assumes one cares about national security; if one doesn't, then that's irrelevant. Given that the U.S. — whatever its faults and flaws — is the only guarantor of international order, though, a weakened U.S. is sure to lead to more international conflict.
  - zmanian 10y ago
    The US govt has already weakened these incentives because of the decision not to prosecute Petraeus. The US govt should not have strong incentives against revealing widespread human rights abuse like full-take surveillance of entire countries.
  - abfan1127 10y ago
    national security? guarantor of international order? Half of the world's conflicts are due to US intervention. Hell, we're giving weapons and training to both sides in some of them. Maybe we could use weaker "national security"...
helthanatos 10y ago
His case should have been: "You pardoned many criminals that actually caused harm, I on the other hand, only caused awareness of the government's surveillance crimes"
- rhino369 10y ago
  He caused awareness of a lot more than that. If he just blew open the meta data bulk collection, I'd strongly support a pardon. But he disclosed much much more than that. Stuff that inarguably legal under US law.
  - helthanatos 10y ago
    What do you mean?
codezero 10y ago
Just out of curiosity – does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public? I imagine that a hurdle to pardoning him would be that there is potentially content that would be too egregious not to charge him, which has yet to be released. If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious :)
- AJ007 10y ago
  No, he would not be. Bill Clinton infamously pardoned fugitive Marc Rich who never did return to the US before his death because there was no guarantee he would not be prosecuted for something else. Unfortunately, Snowden will never be able to safely return to the US.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious Its actually potentially quite simple, but impossible to answer without the actual text of the pardon. A pardon can be as simple or complex, and as broad or narrow as the President chooses to make it. It could, for instance, cover any offense that may have been committed by the recipient prior to the date of the pardon, in which case the answer is simple -- yes, Snowden would be immune.
- knodi123 10y ago
  > does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public He has implied that he possesses such material, in great quantity. He is holding that possession up as deterrent against assassination, although if he received a pardon, presumably he wouldn't need that deterrent anymore? Besides, I would think a deterrent such as I'm describing would be motivation for russians to assassinate him and make it look like americans did it.
  - digler999 10y ago
    > He has implied that he possesses such material, To the contrary, he has adamantly denied possessing any such material. I dont have the source, but in several video interviews he's said to protect himself from being apprehended by foreign intel agencies for a copy of the material, he simply doesnt have it. He's turned it all over to journalists.
marcoperaza 10y ago
Snowden blew any chance of this when he leaked tons of data about totally legitimate foreign intelligence activities, not just domestic spying. Regardless of whether you think leaking the domestic spying programs was justified, his leaks about our activities overseas are unforgivable.
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  Nothing is unforgiveable. Not even failing to defend the country on 9-11.
- ionised 10y ago
  totally legitimate Nope.
- ben0x539 10y ago
  As someone who lives overseas, I'll happily forgive him. I imagine I'm not alone in this.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    His responsibility wasn't to your interests. If your interests conflict with America's interests, then yours lose out in the decisions that the United States makes. Just as if my interests as an American conflict with your government's interests, mine will lose out in their decisions.
    - funkymike 10y ago
      Not everyone segments responsibility to only their own country. He did humanity a service. He certainly did not have a responsibility to intentionally withhold evidence of US surveillance in other countries. I believe he had a moral imperative to reveal that information.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        When you have a government job and are entrusted with a security clearance, your country's interests must be your only concern. The people are entrusting you with their interests.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 10y ago
Am I missing something here? Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned?
- drjesusphd 10y ago
  Yes, you're missing something. Presidents can pardon before conviction, like when Ford pardoned Nixon.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned? You don't need to be convicted, or even charged, to be pardoned; a pardon doesn't even have to be specific as to the crime(s) it covers, it can just cover any crimes you may or may not have committed during some time specified time period before the pardon was issued (as was the case with Ford's pardon of Nixon.) It is true that the usual clemency petition process operates after conviction, but that's a discretionary administrative process, it does not reflect the scope of the Constitutional pardon power.
benevol 10y ago
The problem lies with the assumption/argument of 'moral'. The systems we live in are systemically corrupted by money (and/or power).
honkhonkpants 10y ago
Wouldn't he have to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned before he could be pardoned? I think what Snowden wants here is amnesty.
leksak 10y ago
What is he looking at to his right? Did he receive the questions beforehand and is reading his speech from a paper?

295 points by Red_Tarsius 10y ago

gumby 10y ago

I hope it happens! I wonder what his life would be like upon his return. I suspect his life would still be in danger.

CyberDildonics 10y ago

I hope he gets it, but he'll probably have to donate $100 grand to the Clinton foundation like everyone else.

lb1lf 10y ago

Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon? Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors? Or may a presidential pardon be reversed by any successor? Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?) Hm. Off to Google I go; I find the concept somewhat intriguing.

tptacek 10y ago
Yes, Snowden could be pardoned preemptively and expansively. That's how Ford pardoned Nixon. No, a pardon could not be reversed by a future president (else: Ford could not truly have pardoned Nixon). There's SCOTUS precedent on both of these.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  For clarity: When you say "preemptively", you mean in advance of trial or even indictment. So far as I'm aware, the President cannot issue a pardon in advance of the crime.
s_q_b 10y ago
The President of the United States has the almost unqualified power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States, whether current or past, whether unindicted or convicted.
- lostboys67 10y ago
  Which is a hangover from the more corrupt days if Obama wants to go down in history again he ought to forgo any pardons except for those of miscarriage of justice agreed by the supreme court.
  - pc86 10y ago
    A hangover from the more corrupt days of the 1770s? Not sure what in the world you're trying to say here, honestly.
    - lostboys67 10y ago
      No offense intended America politicians get away with naughty shit that would get you 5 years in jail in the UK. political. Let alone the whole machine system which is well with living memory and handing out ambassadorships to mates instead of professional diplomats doesn't look good.
- eastbayjake 10y ago
  I came to comment that Snowden's request for pardon would presumably require a conviction, but on further research you're right that the president's pardon powers are "unlimited" -- even before legal proceedings have begun: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
chiph 10y ago
President Obama could certainly pardon him without any qualifications. Which is not to say that some people in government wouldn't use their bureaucratic powers to harass him once he returns because they dislike what he did. For example, he might get the run-around when renewing his driver's license: "Oh, we need to see your prescription from your optician before we can put your eyeglass restriction on your license" (obviously not true but he won't get his license until he complies)
- 91bananas 10y ago
  Which assumes someone at the DMV would be cooperative with another human. Slim chance of this
cloudjacker 10y ago
Clintons pardon of Marc Rich happened on his last day in office. I seem to recall the Wikipedia article speculating on the checks and balances available if Marc Rich actually did return to the US You should check that out
- yes_or_gnome 10y ago
  Most pardons happen on the last day of office. Also, there are 'pocket vetos' where the acting president either doesn't want to outright veto to alienate his party or wants to see the election results before making a final decision. Either way, the President ends up vetoing or signing controversial bills in their last few months in office. I seem to recall there was a president that forgot to veto some bills and the next president signed them. I think there was even a Supreme Court case that held the laws as constitutional.
  - mcherm 10y ago
    Correction: a few controversial pardons happen on the last day of office. The majority of presidential pardons flow through the normal process where a person applies for the pardon, has their case reviewed by a team formed for this purpose. Obama stands out as one of the presidents who has issued the FEWEST pardons, although he says he may change that. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/obama-says-he-will-catch-up-on-pardons-but-hes-far-behind http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/obama-says-he...
giardini 10y ago
lb1lf: "how powerful is a presidential pardon?" The president can pardon offenses of federal law. A state's governor can pardon offenses of that particular state's laws.
wmil 10y ago
It's incredibly powerful. The President can actually pardon entire classes of people. Carter issued a pardon to all draft dodgers. Ford had previously issued a limited pardon to some. Obama could actually commute the sentences of everyone serving a sentence strictly for marijuana possession to time served.
- rhino369 10y ago
  The only limit is that it doesn't apply to state crimes.
ceejayoz 10y ago
There's a Clancy novel built around the concept of a private spy agency with blank-check pardons for future actions from a President.
- Kadin 10y ago
  That idea also figured heavily in one of the Jack Bauer TV shows. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of lawyers over beers about it once. As far as anyone could tell, there's no precedent to suggest that that it would work, but none to say that it wouldn't work, either. If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. The sticky situation would be if you got an advance pardon and then did something really heinous, such that the President who gave the original blank-check pardon objected on the basis that the conduct wasn't meant to be covered. You'd be on thin ice then.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. If the President is still in office, as head of the executive branch he can prevent prosecution even if there is no pardon, and, anyway, he could just issue a new and properly retrospective pardon. A pardon that's only good if the President that issued it is still in office and still agrees with it is exactly the same as no pardon at all. The pardon power is only meaningful because it is binding on the federal government, and not just as long as the current President is in power, but forever (or, at least, until the Constitution is amended to change its status.) AFAICT, the general consensus among those who study Constitutional law is that prospective pardons (those for crimes not yet committed when the pardon is issued) are nullities; for there to be a crime for a pardon or reprieve to apply to, it must have been committed (even if it has not been discovered) when the pardon is issued. But because no prospective pardons have been issued and then their effect challenged in court, this has never been litigated, and there is no case law on the subject. (But if prospective pardons were possible, given the established breadth of the pardon power in other aspects, it would mean that the President could essentially prevent the US government from ever adopting -- or, rather, ever enforcing -- certain criminal laws that do not yet exist, simply by issuing prospective pardons for any offenses resulting from particular classes of conduct that he doesn't want to ever be criminalized.)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon? It is absolute. > Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors? No, a pardon only affects criminal prosecutions and punishments -- to the extent covered by the text of the pardon, any future prosecution (or continuation of existing prosecution) is barred, and any criminal punishment (including and disabilities imposed by past conviction) is terminated. It doesn't affect any other action by the government, including any civil action that might be available in law. > Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?) It can be as narrow or broad as the President chooses. About the only limit is that it is generally held (though this has never had occasion to be tested) that the Constitutional power of the pardon does not extend to prospective pardons (that is, a pardon cannot apply to offenses that occur after the pardon is issued.)
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.
- BrandonY 10y ago
  One more limitation: a Presidential pardon doesn't affect state laws. If, for instance, Snowden had committed some crime against the state that he was residing in, the President would not forgive it.

dhimes 10y ago

Jesus Christ the site has 14 trackers as reported by Ghostery. SMH.

tempodox 10y ago
Is that more than usual? The NSA has your number, anyway.
- dhimes 10y ago
  Ha! Yeah, 14 is quite impressive.
  - talmand 10y ago
    In my experience 14 is light.

aluhut 10y ago

I really hope he'll be able to leave Russia one day but if I were him, I wouldn't return to the US. Too many people with weird ideas in their heads.

pc86 10y ago
Not a trait confined to the United States by any stretch.
- pm90 10y ago
  That's true. I guess what the OP meant is that trait + being known in the US is what puts Snowden at greater risk in the US.
- avn2109 10y ago
  The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation/abduction/assassination (while also surveilling him) to make sure they get to keep sticking their finger in America's eye. If he leaves the Eastern bloc you can bet that the boys in Fort Meade will make contingency plans to sabotage his brakes/get him on trumped-up charges for something else a la Assange/otherwise ruin his day.
  - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
    >The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation that's a double edged sword; if the Russian leaders decide some day that they want to improve relations with the US by extraditing him then they might just do it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 10y ago

My guess is, his flight from the US is going to prevent his pardon. A pardon was a long shot no matter what, but a preemptive pardon of a fugitive would be without historical precedent.

finid 10y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton pardon a guy who ran to another country to avoid prosecution here (USA)?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yeah, Mark Rich. Ok, not without precedent. (Mark Rich cooperated and was pardoned conditionally, for whatever that's worth).
- parenthesis 10y ago
  Yes, Marc Rich.
nabla9 10y ago
Carter's pardon for draft dodgers was preemptive pardon for hundreas of thousands of fugitives, many of them who left the country. 50,000 never returned even after pardon. There has been some other preemptive pardons: pardons for Richard Nixon and Caspar Weinberger at least.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Preemptive pardons are definitely not without precedent.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    The point was that preemptive pardons for fugitives is also not without precedent, as you claimed.
    - 10y ago

us0r 10y ago

At the very least he should get a David Petraeus deal (who was trading classified information for sex).

zip1234 10y ago
The scale of what Petraeus did vs what Snowden did is very different.
- msandford 10y ago
  Yeah, agreed! Snowden gave reporters a lot of information which was then released to the American people on the quite probably illegal activities of their "security" apparatus. Petraeus had an affair with a reporter. One of those things made it possible for Americans to know what their government was/is doing with great personal risk to the whistleblower. The other....didn't.
- us0r 10y ago
  I don't think scale is written into the law.
  - zip1234 10y ago
    While I can't speak to whether or not it is written into the law, there is historical precedent on the matter. Look up Clayton Lonetree for one where the scale was low. He was given a shorter sentence than is typical of espionage. Look up Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen for someone where the damage was estimated to be much greater.
knodi123 10y ago
> who was trading classified information for sex That's really not how I read the scandal. A woman, who formerly had clearance for classified material, was engaged in an illicit affair. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that 1.) the classified information was ever leaked to someone without clearance, and 2.) that any actual trading occurred.

krokodil 10y ago

He'll never get it. He lost any hope of whistle-blower status when he released information on foreign surveillance programs.

finid 10y ago
You must be one of those very "patriotic" Americans. The man sacrificed his freedom so yours may last.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Try to keep in mind that reasonable people disagree about Snowden, and remain civil in conversations about him.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Hell I disagree with myself about it.
- actsasbuffoon 10y ago
  I think you might be jumping the gun on that conclusion. Grand parent may have been describing how things are, not how they think the world should be.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
The government lost any hope of moral high-ground by performing illegal surveillance amongst many other things. It is not reasonable to expect Snowden to selectively only release information that was strictly illegal (due to sheer number of files to sort through) and it is reasonable for someone to whistle-blow through unofficial channels when official ones are not available (and they weren't despite many people trying to advocate that they were - save your breath). Here's an idea - don't do horrifically illegal, amoral things alongside other legal but probably still amoral things, quash all possibilities of accountability, and expect that no one will call you out on it. Snowden did the right thing, and the only thing that could have been done.

finid 10y ago

He makes a good case for the pardon, but Obama won't give it. Why? Snowden doesn't have enough powerful forces in high places that will push for the pardon. If he has friends like Jonathan Jay Pollard has, chances are he'll get it, but he doesn't.

rayiner 10y ago
Obama has granted pardons or clemency to well over 100 people while in office. He has directed the DOJ to fill the pipeline of clemency cases for him to review before he leaves office, with a focus on people sentenced under harsher guidelines that were revised while he was in office. Obama won't pardon Snowden not because Snowden doesn't have the right friends. He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. Everyone can get behind pardoning someone sentenced to life for shoplifting under a three strikes law. Snowden is much more divisive.
- hollander 10y ago
  He cannot pardon him right now. That would be too controversial in the US, and it might reflect on Clinton. But after the elections, or in the last month of his presidency, he might do this without consequenses.
- finid 10y ago
  > He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The bigger problem is that Snowden hasn't even been interrogated by the federal government, let alone tried, so it's difficult to really know what they'd be pardoning him for. Publishing the leaks is one thing, but if he's given access to foreign powers to information that has not been made public, that's another. In the Marc Rich case, Clinton had a pretty good idea of what the upper bound of the crime being excused was. Also: he shouldn't have pardoned Rich, is I think the consensus at this point.

Red_Tarsius 10y ago

I admire Snowden's sacrifice, but the US can't pardon him. Doing so would signify weakness and encourage subversive behaviour. Traditionalist countries – China, Russia, Iran – are especially perceptive to status signaling. No doubt they would exploit the event to foster Anti-American sentiments. Also, we don't know the info Russian Intelligence got out of his asylum in Moscow. Side note: I hope GMT Games releases an expansion for Twlight Struggle: 1989 ~ 2015. Despite the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has never stopped. I'd love to re-enact the past 25 years. Snowden flees to Moscow would be a Red Event, 2 ops: "US reveals their hand of cards this turn. Remove up to a total of 2 US Influence from one or more countries to Western Europe". EDIT: to clarify, I do want the US to grant him pardon.

eru 10y ago
The proxy war might have never stopped, but what stopped was people taking Russia serious as _the_ second power on the globe. They lost that top spot.
hollander 10y ago
This is so much letting other people or countries decide what you should do. The Land of the Free should make its own decisions, no matter what China or Russia finds. In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means. Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wtbob 10y ago
  > In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.

tempodox 10y ago

Why would Obama suddenly stop whistleblower persecution? It's the one thing he will be famous for. And you can't ruin a bad reputation.

lordnacho 10y ago

I bet everyone's been digging for precedent. Found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Loring_Morison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Loring_Morison Samuel Loring Morison (born October 30, 1944) is a former American intelligence professional, who was convicted of espionage and theft of government property in 1985, and pardoned in 2001. He was "the only [American] government official ever convicted for giving classified information to the press." Seems pretty similar superficially. I wonder if he'll do it, Obama. Also something quite odd is the number of pardons that seem a bit suspect. For instance Clinton pardoned his own brother. And Marc Rich. Think what you may of him (famous commodity trader, lots of shady deals rumoured), but his crime doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Pardoning Snowden would be a comment on the surveillance state, something worthwhile to talk about. Pardoning some guy who smuggled some oil doesn't seem to have a purpose in regards to the state's role in society.

Consultant32452 10y ago
I wonder how much practical difference it would make to pardon Snowden. It's likely not safe for him to return to the United States anyways.
okwhatthe2 10y ago
> state's role in society You may have just blown Hayden's mind.
talmand 10y ago
Considering the Obama administration's actions towards whistle blowers, despite promising to be highly transparent, suggests Snowden will not be pardoned any time soon.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  In his place, I'd only pardon Snowden and Manning after the election is decided.
  - talmand 10y ago

zmanian 10y ago

Reasons it would be in the interests of the US govt to pardon Snowden: - It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile. - It would remove incentives for Snowden to constantly amplify inconsistent/ hypocritical behavior of the US govt. - It would improve the optics for the tech industry for working more closely with government. Reasons it would be against Us govt interests. - It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad.

sangnoir 10y ago
> It would improve the optics Way off topic: is it just me, or did this particular usage of the faux-technical word "optics" spike this election cycle? To me, it reeks of punditry and/or snootiness (no offense) and rubs me the wrong way.
okwhatthe2 10y ago
They would be mad too at the mean man who took their secrets and didn't follow the rules. How dare he do that you know? What cause could possibly be greater than the intelligence community?
zeveb 10y ago
It would weaken the incentives against leaking national-security information. Of course, that assumes one cares about national security; if one doesn't, then that's irrelevant. Given that the U.S. — whatever its faults and flaws — is the only guarantor of international order, though, a weakened U.S. is sure to lead to more international conflict.
- zmanian 10y ago
  The US govt has already weakened these incentives because of the decision not to prosecute Petraeus. The US govt should not have strong incentives against revealing widespread human rights abuse like full-take surveillance of entire countries.
- abfan1127 10y ago
  national security? guarantor of international order? Half of the world's conflicts are due to US intervention. Hell, we're giving weapons and training to both sides in some of them. Maybe we could use weaker "national security"...

helthanatos 10y ago

His case should have been: "You pardoned many criminals that actually caused harm, I on the other hand, only caused awareness of the government's surveillance crimes"

rhino369 10y ago
He caused awareness of a lot more than that. If he just blew open the meta data bulk collection, I'd strongly support a pardon. But he disclosed much much more than that. Stuff that inarguably legal under US law.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  What do you mean?

codezero 10y ago

Just out of curiosity – does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public? I imagine that a hurdle to pardoning him would be that there is potentially content that would be too egregious not to charge him, which has yet to be released. If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious :)

AJ007 10y ago
No, he would not be. Bill Clinton infamously pardoned fugitive Marc Rich who never did return to the US before his death because there was no guarantee he would not be prosecuted for something else. Unfortunately, Snowden will never be able to safely return to the US.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious Its actually potentially quite simple, but impossible to answer without the actual text of the pardon. A pardon can be as simple or complex, and as broad or narrow as the President chooses to make it. It could, for instance, cover any offense that may have been committed by the recipient prior to the date of the pardon, in which case the answer is simple -- yes, Snowden would be immune.
knodi123 10y ago
> does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public He has implied that he possesses such material, in great quantity. He is holding that possession up as deterrent against assassination, although if he received a pardon, presumably he wouldn't need that deterrent anymore? Besides, I would think a deterrent such as I'm describing would be motivation for russians to assassinate him and make it look like americans did it.
- digler999 10y ago
  > He has implied that he possesses such material, To the contrary, he has adamantly denied possessing any such material. I dont have the source, but in several video interviews he's said to protect himself from being apprehended by foreign intel agencies for a copy of the material, he simply doesnt have it. He's turned it all over to journalists.

marcoperaza 10y ago

Snowden blew any chance of this when he leaked tons of data about totally legitimate foreign intelligence activities, not just domestic spying. Regardless of whether you think leaking the domestic spying programs was justified, his leaks about our activities overseas are unforgivable.

okwhatthe2 10y ago
Nothing is unforgiveable. Not even failing to defend the country on 9-11.
ionised 10y ago
totally legitimate Nope.
ben0x539 10y ago
As someone who lives overseas, I'll happily forgive him. I imagine I'm not alone in this.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  His responsibility wasn't to your interests. If your interests conflict with America's interests, then yours lose out in the decisions that the United States makes. Just as if my interests as an American conflict with your government's interests, mine will lose out in their decisions.
  - funkymike 10y ago
    Not everyone segments responsibility to only their own country. He did humanity a service. He certainly did not have a responsibility to intentionally withhold evidence of US surveillance in other countries. I believe he had a moral imperative to reveal that information.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      When you have a government job and are entrusted with a security clearance, your country's interests must be your only concern. The people are entrusting you with their interests.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

shkkmo 10y ago

Am I missing something here? Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned?

drjesusphd 10y ago
Yes, you're missing something. Presidents can pardon before conviction, like when Ford pardoned Nixon.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned? You don't need to be convicted, or even charged, to be pardoned; a pardon doesn't even have to be specific as to the crime(s) it covers, it can just cover any crimes you may or may not have committed during some time specified time period before the pardon was issued (as was the case with Ford's pardon of Nixon.) It is true that the usual clemency petition process operates after conviction, but that's a discretionary administrative process, it does not reflect the scope of the Constitutional pardon power.

benevol 10y ago

The problem lies with the assumption/argument of 'moral'. The systems we live in are systemically corrupted by money (and/or power).

honkhonkpants 10y ago

Wouldn't he have to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned before he could be pardoned? I think what Snowden wants here is amnesty.

leksak 10y ago

What is he looking at to his right? Did he receive the questions beforehand and is reading his speech from a paper?