5 ms·

Edward Snowden is hugely valuable politically because he stood up to the intelligence agencies and survived (so far). Most importantly, we have a moral obligati

by gizmo 10y ago

Edward Snowden is hugely valuable politically because he stood up to the intelligence agencies and survived (so far). Most importantly, we have a moral obligation to get him pardoned. Snowden sacrificed a great deal already. He doesn't need to be martyred, he should be allowed to return home and continue his life.

wallace_f 10y ago
>should be allowed to return home and continue his life. That is only true if you are operating under the assumption that liberty, human welfare, and strength of America as a nation is a good thing for the future. To me, it's not at all obvious that our ruling class really gives a shit about those.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  You might still divide your feelings about the American ruling class, and Edward Snowden, presently facing criminal prosecution and long time, possibly (though doubtfully) death. So, no, yours isn't the only reason to support pardoning Snowden. It's also, distantly, possible that the act of allowing for the potential good of his actions might lead more to question an unwavering support of present American principles, values, and policies.
usgroup 10y ago
I'd imagine the US gov will hardly want to encourage whistleblowing of that sort nor a patriotic aire about the act. It is a national security risk regardless of how any individual act pans out.
- WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
  Oh I'm sure they wouldn't. But there is no risk to national security, as whistleblowing protections only apply to uncovering illegal activities, abuse and similar misconduct. But who'd want one's security apparatus to be incentivised to follow the rules, right?
- gizmo 10y ago
  Stripping whistleblowers from their constitutional rights and condemning them to a lifetime in prison is arguably a worse national security risk. A society needs layers of checks and balances, and whistleblowing is one such layer. When whistleblowing is penalized so harshly you create an environment of unchecked power. Citizens can't do anything because even when they know they're being lied to, they need to know the specifics of what's going on in order to protest effectively. Because as we've now learned even the elected representatives get sidelined, so they're pretty much useless. Realistically speaking, how much damage can one whistleblower really do when they have no malicious intent? Not much. What are the negative consequences of unchecked power? Effectively unlimited.
  - usgroup 10y ago
    One does not know what a whistleblowers intent is ahead of time. Further, we are talking about secret service stuff here rather than all whistleblowing. No whistleblowers in this area does not mean no oversight or no checks and balances. It's just that as an audit mechanism, it presents a lot of risk since it leaves what can ultimately effect national security to the discretion of the whistleblower.
    - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
      It means an extremely opaque system of checks precisely in an area of the state that is particularly succeptable to abuse. That is a real risk to national security here. Contrary, I can see exactly zero potential for jeopardising national security by any mooderately sane law on whistleblower protection in this area. All whistleblowing is taking things into one's own hands at the risk of persecution, and here its only more so, given the seriousness of the charges one will face if one's defense on the basis of whistleblower protection ie arguing one acted in the public interest and revealed gross abuse of power fails. Whatever is at the discretion for the potential leaker to decide, is at that discretion regardless of legal defense opportunities a leaker may have after the fact. It is simply ludicrous that revealing rampant abuse of power by precisely those tasked with protection of the constitutional order, and precisely at the point where such control is most needed can be a punishable offense in any democracy. But naturally any such leak needs to be able to stand up in court and satisfy some reasonable criteria of public interest and of having revealed serious violations - nobody is suggesting blatant espionage be legalized ffs.
WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
oh no doubt, what was done to him is atrocious and repugnant. I was only trying out an argument that politically his fate is no longer important, and it is of greater value to focus on what will protect the next Snowden better. It's still clearly a moral imperative to help Snowden.
- gizmo 10y ago
  What happens to Snowden sets a precedent. That has huge implications politically. An America where Snowden gets assassinated will be a different America politically than one where Snowden gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > oh no doubt, what was done to him is atrocious and repugnant. What has been done to Snowden that is atrocious and repugnant? He is the one who stole information; he is the one who absconded to adversary states. Nothing has been done to him. > It's still clearly a moral imperative to help Snowden. The moral imperative is to see that he gets a fair trial, and then upon conviction to ensure that he is humanely executed.
  - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
    Wow. Fine, I'll bite: He is prosecuted for the greatest act of whistleblowing since the pentagon papers. This has enabled improvements in both privacy regulations and accelerated the deployment of strong cryptography across the Internet. As the Berlin University puts it, he can thus be credited with "extraordinary achievements in defense of transparency, justice and freedom". Yet despite this, his country of origin has no laws needed to protect him and any future cases of the kind. And what the hell are advesary states? Last I heard the cold war was over... There is of course no possibility that he'd get a trial, so your morbid fantasy is just that... Again, I'm simply astonished that there are people in the US who could see this act as anything other than utter heroism.

by gizmo 10y ago

wallace_f 10y ago

>should be allowed to return home and continue his life. That is only true if you are operating under the assumption that liberty, human welfare, and strength of America as a nation is a good thing for the future. To me, it's not at all obvious that our ruling class really gives a shit about those.

dredmorbius 10y ago
You might still divide your feelings about the American ruling class, and Edward Snowden, presently facing criminal prosecution and long time, possibly (though doubtfully) death. So, no, yours isn't the only reason to support pardoning Snowden. It's also, distantly, possible that the act of allowing for the potential good of his actions might lead more to question an unwavering support of present American principles, values, and policies.

usgroup 10y ago

I'd imagine the US gov will hardly want to encourage whistleblowing of that sort nor a patriotic aire about the act. It is a national security risk regardless of how any individual act pans out.

WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
Oh I'm sure they wouldn't. But there is no risk to national security, as whistleblowing protections only apply to uncovering illegal activities, abuse and similar misconduct. But who'd want one's security apparatus to be incentivised to follow the rules, right?
gizmo 10y ago
Stripping whistleblowers from their constitutional rights and condemning them to a lifetime in prison is arguably a worse national security risk. A society needs layers of checks and balances, and whistleblowing is one such layer. When whistleblowing is penalized so harshly you create an environment of unchecked power. Citizens can't do anything because even when they know they're being lied to, they need to know the specifics of what's going on in order to protest effectively. Because as we've now learned even the elected representatives get sidelined, so they're pretty much useless. Realistically speaking, how much damage can one whistleblower really do when they have no malicious intent? Not much. What are the negative consequences of unchecked power? Effectively unlimited.
- usgroup 10y ago
  One does not know what a whistleblowers intent is ahead of time. Further, we are talking about secret service stuff here rather than all whistleblowing. No whistleblowers in this area does not mean no oversight or no checks and balances. It's just that as an audit mechanism, it presents a lot of risk since it leaves what can ultimately effect national security to the discretion of the whistleblower.
  - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
    It means an extremely opaque system of checks precisely in an area of the state that is particularly succeptable to abuse. That is a real risk to national security here. Contrary, I can see exactly zero potential for jeopardising national security by any mooderately sane law on whistleblower protection in this area. All whistleblowing is taking things into one's own hands at the risk of persecution, and here its only more so, given the seriousness of the charges one will face if one's defense on the basis of whistleblower protection ie arguing one acted in the public interest and revealed gross abuse of power fails. Whatever is at the discretion for the potential leaker to decide, is at that discretion regardless of legal defense opportunities a leaker may have after the fact. It is simply ludicrous that revealing rampant abuse of power by precisely those tasked with protection of the constitutional order, and precisely at the point where such control is most needed can be a punishable offense in any democracy. But naturally any such leak needs to be able to stand up in court and satisfy some reasonable criteria of public interest and of having revealed serious violations - nobody is suggesting blatant espionage be legalized ffs.

WilliamDhalgren 10y ago

oh no doubt, what was done to him is atrocious and repugnant. I was only trying out an argument that politically his fate is no longer important, and it is of greater value to focus on what will protect the next Snowden better. It's still clearly a moral imperative to help Snowden.

gizmo 10y ago
What happens to Snowden sets a precedent. That has huge implications politically. An America where Snowden gets assassinated will be a different America politically than one where Snowden gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
wtbob 10y ago
> oh no doubt, what was done to him is atrocious and repugnant. What has been done to Snowden that is atrocious and repugnant? He is the one who stole information; he is the one who absconded to adversary states. Nothing has been done to him. > It's still clearly a moral imperative to help Snowden. The moral imperative is to see that he gets a fair trial, and then upon conviction to ensure that he is humanely executed.
- WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
  Wow. Fine, I'll bite: He is prosecuted for the greatest act of whistleblowing since the pentagon papers. This has enabled improvements in both privacy regulations and accelerated the deployment of strong cryptography across the Internet. As the Berlin University puts it, he can thus be credited with "extraordinary achievements in defense of transparency, justice and freedom". Yet despite this, his country of origin has no laws needed to protect him and any future cases of the kind. And what the hell are advesary states? Last I heard the cold war was over... There is of course no possibility that he'd get a trial, so your morbid fantasy is just that... Again, I'm simply astonished that there are people in the US who could see this act as anything other than utter heroism.