13 ms·

House Intelligence Committee Letter to Obama on Snowden [pdf]

90 points by tcoppi 10y ago

pboutros 10y ago
Those signatures are illegible. Not that he ever really disappeared, but it's definitely interesting to see the resurgence of Snowden in the zeitgeist now that Pres. Obama's term is coming to a close. A big part of it is undoubtedly people knowing that pardons uptick in the November - January time period for obvious reasons, but I wonder how much of it is worries that the next administration will not be so amenable.
- daturkel 10y ago
  The signatures are from the members of the house intelligence committee, the names of which are listed in the top left corner of the first page of the pdf
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    It is a curious, and useful, way to arrange a document
- samstave 10y ago
  Have either Clinton or Trump publicly/officially stated their opinion on Snowden?
  - croddin 10y ago
    "Snowden is a spy who has caused great damage to the U.S. A spy in the old days, when our country was respected and strong, would be executed" - Trump https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/457314934473633792 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/45731493447363379...
  - Miner49er 10y ago
    Clinton said, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.” in a debate. Not sure about Trump recently, but in 2013 he was very against Snowden and referenced execution as a punishment for him several times.
    - samstave 10y ago
      Not trying to be snide, but didnt her emails wind up in Russian hands from the server she wiped with a cloth??? What music is she facing?
    - CoryG89 10y ago
      What a presidential candidate says about pardons during their campaign should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The reason they wait until the end of both of their terms is so that the decision does not affect their support from voters or any potential bi-partisan support.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
grabcocque 10y ago
There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen. Obama has nothing to gain from this, and has never said or done anything to give the slightest impression he had any sympathy for Snowden.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  This is precisely the reason presidents wait until the end of both terms before making any pardons. It's possible (however unlikely) that Obama, deep down, doesn't actually condemn him as much as he has let on publicly. Regardless of how he personally feels, until now, there are appearances that had to be kept up. So while now he still has nothing to gain by pardoning him, there is now much less to lose than there had been previously.
- bsder 10y ago
  > There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen. Obama has nothing to gain from this Neither of these have to be true. However, 1) Obama will certainly not do something this controversial before the election. 2) Obama absolutely has really nothing to lose either by pardoning Snowden at the end of his term. In fact, he actually has quite a bit of credibility to gain among the people who care.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Snowden insists he has not shared the 1.5 million documents with anyone, but the Russians officials publically concede that he "did share intelligence" with their government. "Russian officials" here refers to a single MP, Franz Klintsevich. If you look at his widely-quoted words carefully, which offer no specifics, it sounds more like he's simply speculating that that's what Snowden did: "Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it." EDIT: Apparently, Klintsevich actually said "to be frank, I think that he shared..." in the original interview ("я думаю что поделился что поделился"), but for whatever reason, NPR dropped the "я думаю" part in its translation.
- slg 10y ago
  Greenwald has stated that Snowden has leaked certain things for self-preservation. [1] Once that precedent is established, it isn't much of a leap to imagine that he would be willing to do that again if pressured by the Russian government. [1] - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688
  - mintplant 10y ago
    Then wouldn't it have been better for the intelligence community if he hadn't had to flee the US for self-preservation? If we had better whistle-blower protections Russia would never have entered the picture.
    - slg 10y ago
      Yes, which is exactly why the report harps on the fact that he did leave and got stuck flying between the US's two biggest political rivals. The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Staying in the US would have certainly involved personal sacrifices from Snowden and he may not trust he would receive a fair trial. However that is why whistle blowers are celebrated. They but themselves at risk for the greater good. And you can't just say the ends justify the means for Snowden potentially giving up information to the Russians because that is the exact logic people inside the NSA use for this type of mass surveillance in the first place. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. Snowden appears to have failed on both of those accounts.
mindslight 10y ago
This tired trope: > Rather than avail himself [Snowden] of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities ... Yes, Snowden obviously should have chosen to sit in USG's cage instead of having meaningfully exposed their criminal conspiracy! I guess the struggle of being on the wrong side of history is that you have to double-down on efforts to keep the temporary condition going. These skinjobs know that when their reign is over, it's over for good. FWIW I think this idea that Obama is all of a sudden going to pardon Snowden is laughable. But the outcome of this situation will be a good indicator of whether Obama was actually a decent person trapped by politics, or yet another empty salesperson for the status quo.
- chevas 10y ago
  Did you just call them Cylons?
  - mindslight 10y ago
    The original reference is to Replicants, but the concept is general. They look human, but only function mechanically. (Yes I'm aware this is unfair to actual artificial intelligence, which will likely be complex enough to have feelings. But for now that's just in movies, and hopefully by the time we actually have that kind of AI the term will no longer be needed as no individual will be pushed into acting as a robot)
mturmon 10y ago
Seems to be a response to the following op-ed from today's NYT -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/pardon-edward-snowden.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/pardon-edward-snow...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
samstave 10y ago
@marcoperaza: Define treason?
- flubert 10y ago
  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
  - samstave 10y ago
    uh... thats not what I meant. Define how what Snowden did was treason, definitively.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      What the NSA did was treason. They systematically disregarded the constitution. Those responsible should be put in jail for life, for crimes against the American people and betraying our country.
      - samstave 10y ago
        Thats exactly what I meant :-)
    - xanderstrike 10y ago
      He is a hero, but he gave confidential government information to foreign powers. Objectively speaking, he betrayed the NSA and the US government. That's treason Debating whether or not what Snowden did was treason is, I think, folly. You can't. He's a traitor to the NSA and the US government. The question in my mind is whether or not his act of treachery had a net positive effect on the citizens of the US and the world. I think human beings have a right to know they're being spied on, en masse, without any reasonable suspicion, so that they can do something about it. For me, Snowden is a hero for what he's done, and for the sacrifices he's made in an effort to make the world a freer place (or at least get the ball rolling). Remember that you don't pardon the innocent. Even those calling for his pardon know that he's guilty. Their argument is just that what he did was worth breaking the law.
leesalminen 10y ago
> Mr. Snowden is not a patriot. He is not a whistleblower. He is a criminal. Quite a statement! It's obviously not black and white. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think the conversation needs to be inclusive, frank and factual. And this statement from our representatives shows a major problem. They don't want conversation, they want sound bites. As an aside, I saw the movie last night and highly recommend it to anyone unsure or not aware of what happened. It seems to be accurate enough to portray the essence of his experiences and decision making process.
- samstave 10y ago
  Pardon me (no pun intended) - which movie??
  - valine 10y ago
    Snowden http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    Sorry, should've been more explicit!
- djrogers 10y ago
  > Mr. Snowden is not a patriot. He is not a whistleblower. He is a criminal. I don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping that all 3 of the above can be (and seem to be) true at the same time.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    If I acknowledge that you may be partially right, that detracts from my own zero sum 100% rightness.
- ganoushoreilly 10y ago
ramblenode 10y ago
> Moreover, the material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of government. Exactly. To those who question why Snowden didn't work through the system, here's your answer--straight from the House Intelligence Committee.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  This seemed to be the biggest flaw in the new movie. IMHO, it could've used a scene or 2 of policy discussion with some Congressional committee/White House. I think it did a good job of showing how those in intelligence think, but not so much on the front end of the gov (our representatives).
- btilly 10y ago
  How was it overseen by Congress when they were lied to, repeatedly, about the existence of the programs they supposedly oversaw? How was it overseen by courts who had never been permitted to see evidence of existence? As far as I can tell, it was unilateral executive action started by the guys who brought us waterboarding, and continued by an executive who mostly continued the same foreign policy. And it is a tool whose largest beneficiary is the same executive branch that authorized it.
  - samstave 10y ago
    Lets coin a new term "Fractal ignorance"
  - DSMan195276 10y ago
    It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on a lot of different programs - some of them presumably weren't known to Congress, some were. It is known that Snowden both leaked information on illegal activities and legal actives of the NSA. Leaking information about legal activities generally isn't protected by whistle-blowing laws or otherwise.
    - btilly 10y ago
x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
Maybe the House Intelligence Committee should look in the mirror to find the treasonous criminals.
soufron 10y ago
Well pardons are not granted to innocent people. He committed a crime yes. But wasn't it for the greater good?
- socmag 10y ago
  X-Altruism... It's a thing http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/walking-the-line-between-good-and-evil-the-common-thread-of-heroes-and-villains/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/walking-the-l...
- nabla9 10y ago
  This is the main issue. Treason is a political crime. Snowden committed a crime to reveal much bigger crime and danger to constitution and American people. He didn't benefit from it personally. Legal system or constitution is not end-all. Laws just approximate what is considered morally correct action and their interpretations often follow little behind the changes. Big positive changes in society often start with breaking the law. Snowden may be legally traitor now but in the deeper sense he did not betray his country.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Snowden is not, and cannot be, charged with treason for his actions in leaking those documents.
    - nabla9 10y ago
      I used treason as colloquialism to describe two felony charges under the Espionage Act. The intent of the Eespionage Act was to protect U.S against traitors inside US. >I am sorry to say that the gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29556 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29556
revelation 10y ago
It's hilarious, these are the people supposed to do the oversight. And they're calling a whistleblower a criminal who triggered actual oversight and new laws. Sure, the new laws are bullshit, but surely you can't do this play right here without losing face.
nsaslideface 10y ago
This is a committee that includes Peter King we're talking about. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/ https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/ responds: "BREAKING: Government officials dislike those who expose their illegal surveillance and trigger global debate about their behavior." "If House Intel Committee had done its job of exercising oversight over NSA, there'd have been no Snowden. He did their job for them. If you don't want leaks, don't build a secret, illegal system of mass surveillance and then hide it and lie about it to the public."
- tptacek 10y ago
  It's the House Intelligence committee. Peter King didn't start it, nor does he chair it. Every minority member of the committee appears to have signed it as well.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
knowaveragejoe 10y ago
To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this? > Mr. Snowden's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to protect Americans, privacy and civil liberties is undercut by his actions. Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. The vast majority of the documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests, but instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to America's enemies.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  There is some truth to it; though I think part of Snowden's ability to publish the public-interest information is predicated on his threat to publish the really important stuff. Then again, he could easily just be a foreign operative, we never will know. I, for one, am happy that we have some knowledge of the programs exposed. I do not, however, harbour the illusion that Snowden is definitely altruistic. Though to answer the "why not stay?" question; I don't honestly think that there is any practical way to expose U.S. secrets in the United States. By the time the news reports came out, he had already been targeted in several forcible operations. I also doubt that anything would have been done, considering that they haven't done much about it despite the entire world knowing.
- eganist 10y ago
  Sure. Tons of revelations on actual clandestine activities (think ops NSA ran against other nation states, not US citizens, and not even US citizens indirectly) were compromised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... That's a mishmash of disclosures including those Snowden claimed to focus on, but there are plenty stemming from the Snowden leaks which had to do with run of the mill intercepts against foreign states and even against allies (because allies spy on allies all the time, let's be honest). Whether "vast majority" is true isn't something I can say because I personally haven't actually read the leaks themselves, but it wouldn't surprise me given that most of the news after the big US revelations were all about NSA activities outside the US against non-US persons. I won't bring my own opinion into this, but given my reply, it's probably fairly easy to discern what I think should(n't) be done here.
tn13 10y ago
As an Indian immigrant who does not have voting rights in USA nor very keen follower of American politics it appears to me that the biggest danger to American freedom is the leading presidential candidate who has received several billions of dollars from corrupt foreign powers for dubious reasons and might become Commander-In-Chief of USA and also appoint judges who are expected to pass important judgements about what freedoms Americans can have. Threat posed by Snowden is not even on the same plane as the threat posed by such potentially compromised political leader. It totally baffles me that this is not THE biggest issue in American politics. Imagine Uber is appointing a CEO who is getting $$$ for Lyft!
tn13 10y ago
Anyone who is refusing to see that the whole Snowden issue is not black and white in my opinion does not deserve serious attention. Snowden has done an important public service there is no doubt about it. But without looking at all the information he has leaked we can not say for certain he might have erred or put lives of Americans at risk. That is still a crime. Of course if Hillary can present "recklessness" as defense I think Snowden should be able to do the same. He was a bit reckless in his zeal for protecting rights of Americans.
suprgeek 10y ago
Now this is an exercise in doublespeak: 1) Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it. 2)...vast majority ofthe documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests How do you verify this? you can't 3)..In the course of doing so, he infiringed on the privacy of thousands of his friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans 4) The material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of govemment. - the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence. What a bunch of gutless hypocrites.
- NullCharacter 10y ago
  > WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it. Then why not bring proof? 1.5 million documents and he can't bring the emails he sent? No, we saw the emails (that is to say, one email: https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-but-theyre-not-about-his-concerns-with-surveillance https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-b...) that were sent to OGC, and nothing in them indicated he was raising any concerns. > How do you verify this? you can't He took 1.5 million documents and we've seen what, maybe 100-200 documents and slides over the course of three years? What's the other 1,499,800 million classified documents about? > Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans Fine, if he had only taken documents pertaining to his qualms then there would have been a much greater chance of him being labeled a whistleblower or at least be met with some leniency even if he didn't in fact follow the proper channels. > the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence. 1,499,800 documents that likely have absolutely zero to do with what he was supposed to be blowing the whistle on.
jknoepfler 10y ago
I believe that Snowden's actions were technically criminal, even perhaps technically treasonous. I also believe that he was a patriotic whistleblower, and that his actions are pardonable. The letter seeks to oppose these two ideas, but they are not logically contradictory. The law is not always morally correct, and a presidential pardon is a way to correct this in extraordinary circumstances. I do believe that Snowden should have been willing to be incarcerated for what he did. However, I believe he did his (my) country an exceptional service, and he should be exonerated on that basis.
- atdt 10y ago
  > "I've volunteered to go to prison with the government many times," Snowden said in an interview with the BBC that aired Monday. "What I won't do is I won't serve as a deterrent to people trying to do the right thing in difficult situations." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/06/edward-snowden-says-he-would-go-to-jail-to-come-back-to-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/06...
saneshark 10y ago
So this is probably just semantics, but can someone be "pardoned" when they have not yet been tried and found guilty of a crime? Until Snowden is tried and found guilty, he is innocent. What is there to exonerate at present?
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Yep. Most famously, Richard Nixon was pardoned before being convicted of anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
- auxbuss 10y ago
  It's law rather than semantics. The wikipedia article [0] on Nixon's pardon refers to this specifically: "After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
PartTimeZombie 10y ago
My view is that he has failed. The media where I live don't report anything at all about Snowden anymore, he might as well not exist. But then the media where I live are supine lickspittles who spend their time regurgitating Government media releases and celebrity news.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jjcm 10y ago
In case anyone is wondering, here are the signatories on this: http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members.htm http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members.h... Devin Nunes, Chairman 22nd District of California Jeff Miller 1st District of Florida Mike Conaway 11th District of Texas Peter King 2nd District of New York Frank LoBiondo 2nd District of New Jersey Lynn Westmoreland 3rd District of Georgia Tom Rooney 17th District of Florida Joe Heck 3rd District of Nevada Mike Pompeo 4th District of Kansas Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 27th District of Florida Michael Turner 10th District of Ohio Brad Wenstrup 2nd District of Ohio Chris Stewart 2nd District of Utah
- tptacek 10y ago
  There are 23 signatures, and it's easy to find several of the minority's members among them. It looks to me like every member of House Intelligence signed.
atdt 10y ago
Snowden's leaks were damaging to the members of this committee, because they showed the American public that the American intelligence apparatus is not subject to any meaningful oversight. So it is entirely predictable that the members of this committee would try to protect themselves by shifting focus to Snowden, away from their criminality. Three years have elapsed since Snowden's revelations, and the intelligence community has not been able to show how the leaks have compromised national security. This is why the signatories of this letter have to avail themselves to gauzy arguments about Snowden's character and insinuations of collusion with Russia or China.
leepowers 10y ago
Check out this Intelligence Squared debate between Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers) vs. a former CIA director - it provides a deeper insight into the perspective behind this letter, and the vacuous arguments made by the anti-Snowden cohort: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-justified http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-jus... The letter reminds me of how the DEA is consistently hyperbolic regarding the public health dangers of marijuana. To concede that weed is essentially harmless and medically useful would invalidate much of the drug war the DEA has waged for the past 40 years. Similarly - to acknowledge Snowden in any positive light would invalidate the spying regime instituted by the U.S. government. And force the to acknowledge that their powerful spy tools require equally powerful oversight. The lesson the NSA, the House committee, and others should take from Snowden is not that he's a villain. Rather, that one way or the other substantial oversight is going to occur, even if it requires the largest leak in history. Create truly transparent and accountable systems and there will be no more Snowdens. Throw the book at him, become more insular and secretive, and the problem will only get worse.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Why would the House Intelligence committee be opposed to oversight of the NSA? That's their job.
  - AngrySkillzz 10y ago
    Because admitting that Snowden was a whistleblower or a patriot would imply that they had not been doing their jobs as overseers. It would also potentially limit the power of the intelligence apparatus, which would in turn limit the power of these congressmen as some of their clout comes from being on a committee overseeing a constellation of powerful agencies. Their incentives are completely misaligned.
  - leepowers 10y ago
    That depends on the members of the committee. Are they dedicated to substantive oversight, or a rubber-stamp process? This controversy ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight and accountability. The current spying regime maintains oversight by pliant secret courts and congressional committees is enough. The scale of the spying powers has not been met by equally powerful oversight.
squozzer 10y ago
Whatever your opinion on Snowden, his actions pre- and post-exposure, let's at least agree on the following: 1) Snowden would probably not have gotten a trial, he would probably have gone to Gitmo, forever. That's how post-9/11 USA rolls. 2) Intelligence services everywhere operate outside the law wherever and whenever possible. That's why they exist. And they do not respect the legislature or the courts, except where it serves theie purposes. 3) Internal mechanisms such as IG don't work as efficiently as people would have us believe. Whistleblowers are considered, by and large, as "rats." And those whose job it is to maintain accountability are frequently shunned -- think of a police department's internal affairs. 4) Lawful does not mean moral, righteous, or even in the best interest of one's country. Before launching into a Joe Friday "if you don't like the law, change it" speech, ask yourself this -- when was the last time a cop or any other government minion ever took a public stand against a law they thought was wrong? Ever wonder why?
squozzer 10y ago
Not sure I'm going to get behind a committee whose membership includes a terrorist sympathizer (Peter King.)

90 points by tcoppi 10y ago

Those signatures are illegible. Not that he ever really disappeared, but it's definitely interesting to see the resurgence of Snowden in the zeitgeist now that Pres. Obama's term is coming to a close. A big part of it is undoubtedly people knowing that pardons uptick in the November - January time period for obvious reasons, but I wonder how much of it is worries that the next administration will not be so amenable.

daturkel 10y ago
The signatures are from the members of the house intelligence committee, the names of which are listed in the top left corner of the first page of the pdf
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  It is a curious, and useful, way to arrange a document
samstave 10y ago
Have either Clinton or Trump publicly/officially stated their opinion on Snowden?
- croddin 10y ago
  "Snowden is a spy who has caused great damage to the U.S. A spy in the old days, when our country was respected and strong, would be executed" - Trump https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/457314934473633792 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/45731493447363379...
- Miner49er 10y ago
  Clinton said, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.” in a debate. Not sure about Trump recently, but in 2013 he was very against Snowden and referenced execution as a punishment for him several times.
  - samstave 10y ago
    Not trying to be snide, but didnt her emails wind up in Russian hands from the server she wiped with a cloth??? What music is she facing?
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    What a presidential candidate says about pardons during their campaign should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The reason they wait until the end of both of their terms is so that the decision does not affect their support from voters or any potential bi-partisan support.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

grabcocque 10y ago

There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen. Obama has nothing to gain from this, and has never said or done anything to give the slightest impression he had any sympathy for Snowden.

CoryG89 10y ago
This is precisely the reason presidents wait until the end of both terms before making any pardons. It's possible (however unlikely) that Obama, deep down, doesn't actually condemn him as much as he has let on publicly. Regardless of how he personally feels, until now, there are appearances that had to be kept up. So while now he still has nothing to gain by pardoning him, there is now much less to lose than there had been previously.
bsder 10y ago
> There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen. Obama has nothing to gain from this Neither of these have to be true. However, 1) Obama will certainly not do something this controversial before the election. 2) Obama absolutely has really nothing to lose either by pardoning Snowden at the end of his term. In fact, he actually has quite a bit of credibility to gain among the people who care.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Snowden insists he has not shared the 1.5 million documents with anyone, but the Russians officials publically concede that he "did share intelligence" with their government. "Russian officials" here refers to a single MP, Franz Klintsevich. If you look at his widely-quoted words carefully, which offer no specifics, it sounds more like he's simply speculating that that's what Snowden did: "Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get information, they will get it." EDIT: Apparently, Klintsevich actually said "to be frank, I think that he shared..." in the original interview ("я думаю что поделился что поделился"), but for whatever reason, NPR dropped the "я думаю" part in its translation.

slg 10y ago
Greenwald has stated that Snowden has leaked certain things for self-preservation. [1] Once that precedent is established, it isn't much of a leap to imagine that he would be willing to do that again if pressured by the Russian government. [1] - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688
- mintplant 10y ago
  Then wouldn't it have been better for the intelligence community if he hadn't had to flee the US for self-preservation? If we had better whistle-blower protections Russia would never have entered the picture.
  - slg 10y ago
    Yes, which is exactly why the report harps on the fact that he did leave and got stuck flying between the US's two biggest political rivals. The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Staying in the US would have certainly involved personal sacrifices from Snowden and he may not trust he would receive a fair trial. However that is why whistle blowers are celebrated. They but themselves at risk for the greater good. And you can't just say the ends justify the means for Snowden potentially giving up information to the Russians because that is the exact logic people inside the NSA use for this type of mass surveillance in the first place. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. Snowden appears to have failed on both of those accounts.

mindslight 10y ago

This tired trope: > Rather than avail himself [Snowden] of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities ... Yes, Snowden obviously should have chosen to sit in USG's cage instead of having meaningfully exposed their criminal conspiracy! I guess the struggle of being on the wrong side of history is that you have to double-down on efforts to keep the temporary condition going. These skinjobs know that when their reign is over, it's over for good. FWIW I think this idea that Obama is all of a sudden going to pardon Snowden is laughable. But the outcome of this situation will be a good indicator of whether Obama was actually a decent person trapped by politics, or yet another empty salesperson for the status quo.

chevas 10y ago
Did you just call them Cylons?
- mindslight 10y ago
  The original reference is to Replicants, but the concept is general. They look human, but only function mechanically. (Yes I'm aware this is unfair to actual artificial intelligence, which will likely be complex enough to have feelings. But for now that's just in movies, and hopefully by the time we actually have that kind of AI the term will no longer be needed as no individual will be pushed into acting as a robot)

mturmon 10y ago

Seems to be a response to the following op-ed from today's NYT -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/pardon-edward-snowden.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/pardon-edward-snow...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

samstave 10y ago

@marcoperaza: Define treason?

flubert 10y ago
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
- samstave 10y ago
  uh... thats not what I meant. Define how what Snowden did was treason, definitively.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    What the NSA did was treason. They systematically disregarded the constitution. Those responsible should be put in jail for life, for crimes against the American people and betraying our country.
    - samstave 10y ago
      Thats exactly what I meant :-)
  - xanderstrike 10y ago
    He is a hero, but he gave confidential government information to foreign powers. Objectively speaking, he betrayed the NSA and the US government. That's treason Debating whether or not what Snowden did was treason is, I think, folly. You can't. He's a traitor to the NSA and the US government. The question in my mind is whether or not his act of treachery had a net positive effect on the citizens of the US and the world. I think human beings have a right to know they're being spied on, en masse, without any reasonable suspicion, so that they can do something about it. For me, Snowden is a hero for what he's done, and for the sacrifices he's made in an effort to make the world a freer place (or at least get the ball rolling). Remember that you don't pardon the innocent. Even those calling for his pardon know that he's guilty. Their argument is just that what he did was worth breaking the law.

leesalminen 10y ago

> Mr. Snowden is not a patriot. He is not a whistleblower. He is a criminal. Quite a statement! It's obviously not black and white. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think the conversation needs to be inclusive, frank and factual. And this statement from our representatives shows a major problem. They don't want conversation, they want sound bites. As an aside, I saw the movie last night and highly recommend it to anyone unsure or not aware of what happened. It seems to be accurate enough to portray the essence of his experiences and decision making process.

samstave 10y ago
Pardon me (no pun intended) - which movie??
- valine 10y ago
  Snowden http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- leesalminen 10y ago
  Sorry, should've been more explicit!
djrogers 10y ago
> Mr. Snowden is not a patriot. He is not a whistleblower. He is a criminal. I don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping that all 3 of the above can be (and seem to be) true at the same time.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  If I acknowledge that you may be partially right, that detracts from my own zero sum 100% rightness.
ganoushoreilly 10y ago

ramblenode 10y ago

> Moreover, the material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of government. Exactly. To those who question why Snowden didn't work through the system, here's your answer--straight from the House Intelligence Committee.

leesalminen 10y ago
This seemed to be the biggest flaw in the new movie. IMHO, it could've used a scene or 2 of policy discussion with some Congressional committee/White House. I think it did a good job of showing how those in intelligence think, but not so much on the front end of the gov (our representatives).
btilly 10y ago
How was it overseen by Congress when they were lied to, repeatedly, about the existence of the programs they supposedly oversaw? How was it overseen by courts who had never been permitted to see evidence of existence? As far as I can tell, it was unilateral executive action started by the guys who brought us waterboarding, and continued by an executive who mostly continued the same foreign policy. And it is a tool whose largest beneficiary is the same executive branch that authorized it.
- samstave 10y ago
  Lets coin a new term "Fractal ignorance"
- DSMan195276 10y ago
  It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on a lot of different programs - some of them presumably weren't known to Congress, some were. It is known that Snowden both leaked information on illegal activities and legal actives of the NSA. Leaking information about legal activities generally isn't protected by whistle-blowing laws or otherwise.
  - btilly 10y ago

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago

Maybe the House Intelligence Committee should look in the mirror to find the treasonous criminals.

soufron 10y ago

Well pardons are not granted to innocent people. He committed a crime yes. But wasn't it for the greater good?

socmag 10y ago
X-Altruism... It's a thing http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/walking-the-line-between-good-and-evil-the-common-thread-of-heroes-and-villains/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/walking-the-l...
nabla9 10y ago
This is the main issue. Treason is a political crime. Snowden committed a crime to reveal much bigger crime and danger to constitution and American people. He didn't benefit from it personally. Legal system or constitution is not end-all. Laws just approximate what is considered morally correct action and their interpretations often follow little behind the changes. Big positive changes in society often start with breaking the law. Snowden may be legally traitor now but in the deeper sense he did not betray his country.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Snowden is not, and cannot be, charged with treason for his actions in leaking those documents.
  - nabla9 10y ago
    I used treason as colloquialism to describe two felony charges under the Espionage Act. The intent of the Eespionage Act was to protect U.S against traitors inside US. >I am sorry to say that the gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29556 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29556

revelation 10y ago

It's hilarious, these are the people supposed to do the oversight. And they're calling a whistleblower a criminal who triggered actual oversight and new laws. Sure, the new laws are bullshit, but surely you can't do this play right here without losing face.

nsaslideface 10y ago

This is a committee that includes Peter King we're talking about. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/ https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/ responds: "BREAKING: Government officials dislike those who expose their illegal surveillance and trigger global debate about their behavior." "If House Intel Committee had done its job of exercising oversight over NSA, there'd have been no Snowden. He did their job for them. If you don't want leaks, don't build a secret, illegal system of mass surveillance and then hide it and lie about it to the public."

tptacek 10y ago
It's the House Intelligence committee. Peter King didn't start it, nor does he chair it. Every minority member of the committee appears to have signed it as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

knowaveragejoe 10y ago

To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this? > Mr. Snowden's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to protect Americans, privacy and civil liberties is undercut by his actions. Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. The vast majority of the documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests, but instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to America's enemies.

microcolonel 10y ago
There is some truth to it; though I think part of Snowden's ability to publish the public-interest information is predicated on his threat to publish the really important stuff. Then again, he could easily just be a foreign operative, we never will know. I, for one, am happy that we have some knowledge of the programs exposed. I do not, however, harbour the illusion that Snowden is definitely altruistic. Though to answer the "why not stay?" question; I don't honestly think that there is any practical way to expose U.S. secrets in the United States. By the time the news reports came out, he had already been targeted in several forcible operations. I also doubt that anything would have been done, considering that they haven't done much about it despite the entire world knowing.
eganist 10y ago
Sure. Tons of revelations on actual clandestine activities (think ops NSA ran against other nation states, not US citizens, and not even US citizens indirectly) were compromised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... That's a mishmash of disclosures including those Snowden claimed to focus on, but there are plenty stemming from the Snowden leaks which had to do with run of the mill intercepts against foreign states and even against allies (because allies spy on allies all the time, let's be honest). Whether "vast majority" is true isn't something I can say because I personally haven't actually read the leaks themselves, but it wouldn't surprise me given that most of the news after the big US revelations were all about NSA activities outside the US against non-US persons. I won't bring my own opinion into this, but given my reply, it's probably fairly easy to discern what I think should(n't) be done here.

tn13 10y ago

As an Indian immigrant who does not have voting rights in USA nor very keen follower of American politics it appears to me that the biggest danger to American freedom is the leading presidential candidate who has received several billions of dollars from corrupt foreign powers for dubious reasons and might become Commander-In-Chief of USA and also appoint judges who are expected to pass important judgements about what freedoms Americans can have. Threat posed by Snowden is not even on the same plane as the threat posed by such potentially compromised political leader. It totally baffles me that this is not THE biggest issue in American politics. Imagine Uber is appointing a CEO who is getting $$$ for Lyft!

tn13 10y ago

Anyone who is refusing to see that the whole Snowden issue is not black and white in my opinion does not deserve serious attention. Snowden has done an important public service there is no doubt about it. But without looking at all the information he has leaked we can not say for certain he might have erred or put lives of Americans at risk. That is still a crime. Of course if Hillary can present "recklessness" as defense I think Snowden should be able to do the same. He was a bit reckless in his zeal for protecting rights of Americans.

suprgeek 10y ago

Now this is an exercise in doublespeak: 1) Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks. WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it. 2)...vast majority ofthe documents had nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy interests How do you verify this? you can't 3)..In the course of doing so, he infiringed on the privacy of thousands of his friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans 4) The material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of govemment. - the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence. What a bunch of gutless hypocrites.

NullCharacter 10y ago
> WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it. Then why not bring proof? 1.5 million documents and he can't bring the emails he sent? No, we saw the emails (that is to say, one email: https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-but-theyre-not-about-his-concerns-with-surveillance https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-b...) that were sent to OGC, and nothing in them indicated he was raising any concerns. > How do you verify this? you can't He took 1.5 million documents and we've seen what, maybe 100-200 documents and slides over the course of three years? What's the other 1,499,800 million classified documents about? > Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million americans Fine, if he had only taken documents pertaining to his qualms then there would have been a much greater chance of him being labeled a whistleblower or at least be met with some leniency even if he didn't in fact follow the proper channels. > the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to intelligence. 1,499,800 documents that likely have absolutely zero to do with what he was supposed to be blowing the whistle on.

jknoepfler 10y ago

I believe that Snowden's actions were technically criminal, even perhaps technically treasonous. I also believe that he was a patriotic whistleblower, and that his actions are pardonable. The letter seeks to oppose these two ideas, but they are not logically contradictory. The law is not always morally correct, and a presidential pardon is a way to correct this in extraordinary circumstances. I do believe that Snowden should have been willing to be incarcerated for what he did. However, I believe he did his (my) country an exceptional service, and he should be exonerated on that basis.

atdt 10y ago
> "I've volunteered to go to prison with the government many times," Snowden said in an interview with the BBC that aired Monday. "What I won't do is I won't serve as a deterrent to people trying to do the right thing in difficult situations." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/06/edward-snowden-says-he-would-go-to-jail-to-come-back-to-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/06...

saneshark 10y ago

So this is probably just semantics, but can someone be "pardoned" when they have not yet been tried and found guilty of a crime? Until Snowden is tried and found guilty, he is innocent. What is there to exonerate at present?

mikeyouse 10y ago
Yep. Most famously, Richard Nixon was pardoned before being convicted of anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
auxbuss 10y ago
It's law rather than semantics. The wikipedia article [0] on Nixon's pardon refers to this specifically: "After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

PartTimeZombie 10y ago

My view is that he has failed. The media where I live don't report anything at all about Snowden anymore, he might as well not exist. But then the media where I live are supine lickspittles who spend their time regurgitating Government media releases and celebrity news.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jjcm 10y ago

In case anyone is wondering, here are the signatories on this: http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members.htm http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members.h... Devin Nunes, Chairman 22nd District of California Jeff Miller 1st District of Florida Mike Conaway 11th District of Texas Peter King 2nd District of New York Frank LoBiondo 2nd District of New Jersey Lynn Westmoreland 3rd District of Georgia Tom Rooney 17th District of Florida Joe Heck 3rd District of Nevada Mike Pompeo 4th District of Kansas Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 27th District of Florida Michael Turner 10th District of Ohio Brad Wenstrup 2nd District of Ohio Chris Stewart 2nd District of Utah

tptacek 10y ago
There are 23 signatures, and it's easy to find several of the minority's members among them. It looks to me like every member of House Intelligence signed.

atdt 10y ago

Snowden's leaks were damaging to the members of this committee, because they showed the American public that the American intelligence apparatus is not subject to any meaningful oversight. So it is entirely predictable that the members of this committee would try to protect themselves by shifting focus to Snowden, away from their criminality. Three years have elapsed since Snowden's revelations, and the intelligence community has not been able to show how the leaks have compromised national security. This is why the signatories of this letter have to avail themselves to gauzy arguments about Snowden's character and insinuations of collusion with Russia or China.

leepowers 10y ago

Check out this Intelligence Squared debate between Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers) vs. a former CIA director - it provides a deeper insight into the perspective behind this letter, and the vacuous arguments made by the anti-Snowden cohort: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-justified http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-jus... The letter reminds me of how the DEA is consistently hyperbolic regarding the public health dangers of marijuana. To concede that weed is essentially harmless and medically useful would invalidate much of the drug war the DEA has waged for the past 40 years. Similarly - to acknowledge Snowden in any positive light would invalidate the spying regime instituted by the U.S. government. And force the to acknowledge that their powerful spy tools require equally powerful oversight. The lesson the NSA, the House committee, and others should take from Snowden is not that he's a villain. Rather, that one way or the other substantial oversight is going to occur, even if it requires the largest leak in history. Create truly transparent and accountable systems and there will be no more Snowdens. Throw the book at him, become more insular and secretive, and the problem will only get worse.

tptacek 10y ago
Why would the House Intelligence committee be opposed to oversight of the NSA? That's their job.
- AngrySkillzz 10y ago
  Because admitting that Snowden was a whistleblower or a patriot would imply that they had not been doing their jobs as overseers. It would also potentially limit the power of the intelligence apparatus, which would in turn limit the power of these congressmen as some of their clout comes from being on a committee overseeing a constellation of powerful agencies. Their incentives are completely misaligned.
- leepowers 10y ago
  That depends on the members of the committee. Are they dedicated to substantive oversight, or a rubber-stamp process? This controversy ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight and accountability. The current spying regime maintains oversight by pliant secret courts and congressional committees is enough. The scale of the spying powers has not been met by equally powerful oversight.

squozzer 10y ago

Whatever your opinion on Snowden, his actions pre- and post-exposure, let's at least agree on the following: 1) Snowden would probably not have gotten a trial, he would probably have gone to Gitmo, forever. That's how post-9/11 USA rolls. 2) Intelligence services everywhere operate outside the law wherever and whenever possible. That's why they exist. And they do not respect the legislature or the courts, except where it serves theie purposes. 3) Internal mechanisms such as IG don't work as efficiently as people would have us believe. Whistleblowers are considered, by and large, as "rats." And those whose job it is to maintain accountability are frequently shunned -- think of a police department's internal affairs. 4) Lawful does not mean moral, righteous, or even in the best interest of one's country. Before launching into a Joe Friday "if you don't like the law, change it" speech, ask yourself this -- when was the last time a cop or any other government minion ever took a public stand against a law they thought was wrong? Ever wonder why?

squozzer 10y ago

Not sure I'm going to get behind a committee whose membership includes a terrorist sympathizer (Peter King.)