19 ms·

Letter From Human Rights Leaders Asking President Obama To Pardon Edward Snowden

• formula1 10y ago
  Perhaps its just pessimism but there likely never be a pardon for Snowden. Once and if Snowden is pardoned, the military has now made it "acceptable" to comprimise secrets. Though Snowden is arguably in the moral right, if someone does this sort of thing for poor/naive reasons and if the knowledge is more sensitive (such as Hiraldo Rivera explaining exact locations and plans on a broadcast) there may be a much bigger problem. I think the closest Snowden will likely get is an honorable burial in US or have a bill named after him. But I highly doubt either party will pardon him.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • pvg 10y ago
    Snowden was not in the military and the secrets he lifted were from a civilian organization.
    • thret 10y ago
      This is a very important distinction.
      • walshemj 10y ago
        Really? official secrets acts (or the equivelents) apply to every one - there may be additional punishments for military and those who have signed the act.
        • pvg 10y ago
          He wasn't in the military, didn't take secrets from the military so if he were pardoned, it can't possibly suggest the military considers such things acceptable. The military doesn't come into it. The poster is maybe confusing him with Chelsea Manning who was in the military and was tried and sentenced by a military court.
          • walshemj 10y ago
            not sure what your getting at ? a secret is a secret doesn't mater if you work for a civilian organisation or a military and arguably the CIA is a para military organisation as it has its own shooters
  • vidoc 10y ago
    > Perhaps its just pessimism but there likely never be a pardon for Snowden. Who knows, maybe one day some politician running for office or seeking a popularity boost may consider it if he feels that the domestic opinion is drastically in favor of a Snowden pardon. Though, while I am not quiet sure how reliable the polls i saw on the matter were, but they seemed to indicate a majority of Americans were hostile to a pardon. Crossing fingers for this man that his situation rapidly finds a positive outcome! I'm generally not a big believer of the whole 'hero' concept but the tremendous life tradeoffs this man is bearing, not just to stand for his ideas and beliefs - but to defend privacy and freedoms - really inspire my profound respect. It also humbles me as I do realize I would never have that courage.
• lkajsd 10y ago
  Obama isn't going to pardon Snowden, of course he isn't. Maybe Putin will though.
  • sneak 10y ago
    I firmly believe he already has—does anyone believe that he would be alive today if not for the meticulous and persistent efforts of the FSB? It's a strange sensation indeed, rooting for the success of the "other guys".
• nsomaru 10y ago
  I know nothing about American law, but why has the constant plea been for a pardon and not amnesty? It seems like in the former case one would need to be convicted of something before one could be pardoned. Snowden hasn't been convicted of anything yet... Although there is the caveat that amnesty at federal level would not provide immunity from prosecution by state courts, as far as I understand it. IANAL.
  • farva 10y ago
    Ford pardoned Nixon without him being convicted. Amnesty is a pardon given to a group of people, rather than an individual.
• lettergram 10y ago
  I discussed this with a few friends. And it's really best if nothing is done with Snowden from the governments perspective. If they pardon him, they say it's alright to release national secrets based on "feelings" (even if it's morally correct to do so, they can't have that). If they try to get him to the US for a public trial, who knows what will happen. If they bring him home for a secret trial, the risk rioting or a martyr. Similarly, if they kill him with a direct assassination he will be a martyr, and they'll be dramatically ruining their image. Finally, if they kill him in a covert way, no one will believe it and in all likelihood it will be widely believed it is the governments doing. By leaving him in this limbo, the government can claim what ever they want about him without proving it. At the same time, Snowden has no more info to disclose, although he has a solid and growing cult following. For the record, I signed this as soon as I heard about it and shared it with everyone I knew. I think it's important to be counted and try to share and convince others if your beliefs, if you believe it'll dramatically impact your future. What Snowden did and what he stands for is the last chance to have any form of democracy or privacy. Unfortunately, it appears to have failed, but that doesn't mean you stop trying to improve things. Perhaps, the younger generation (millennials and below) will recognize what he did, as opposed to what the government is trying to spin.
  • yes_or_gnome 10y ago
    What about the possibility that Snowden dies from a freak accident or suspicious circumstances while in exile? Either will look like a government coverup. It's probably better to get him home one way or the other - I'd prefer a pardon -, or you very quietly make sure that all his needs and wants are tended to.
  • eterm 10y ago
    I agree, and I think right now the timing is really bad. It is the wrong time to weaken the IC any further given how that would play in the "IC vs Incoming administration" showdown that seems to be squaring up. "It's OK to share information and run to Russia" is not a good thing to pardon when you're trying to investigate whether people close to the incoming administration have shared information with Russia.
  • peteretep 10y ago
• AbrahamParangi 10y ago
  I'm reminded of this article (posted here a few months ago) https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-president-obama-wont-and-shouldnt-pardon-snowden https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-president-obama-wont-and-sho... I found it to make a compelling case, if only because it offers less emotion and more citations than I've seen elsewhere on this topic.
  • RodericDay 10y ago
    > if only because it offers less emotion and more citations This is such a weird metric. "More citations" sounds like "more lines of code", and the problem with an emotional plea is not that it is emotional but that it often replaces logical ones. > the smidgen of his revelations about possibly unlawful domestic surveillance or collection against U.S. persons If you think that's an accurate characterization then you really didn't need this article to push you over the edge.
    • pvg 10y ago
      In what ways do you feel this characterization is inaccurate?
      • aub3bhat 10y ago
        Just because more people cite it does not necessarily mean that its correct.
      • RodericDay 10y ago
        smidgen, possibly, conflation of legality and morality
        • pvg 10y ago
          All of these are perfectly defensible - the info in question was a 'smidgen' compared to the total amount of data taken, there is no universal agreement about the constitutionality of the program. There's no mention of morality in the bit you quoted. The author is a lawyer.
• Vosporos 10y ago
  Even Snowden says to pardon Chelsea Manning… :/
• yadabadabada 10y ago
  I signed it. Proud to be counted publicly. The oath of office that President Obama took demands that he pardon a whistleblower responsible for revealing massive violations of the Constition The very concept of "setting an example" by not pardoning him is evil. Every case should be judged on its on merits and Snowden's case will be judged by history quite favorably. Obama should have pardoned him and appointed him the NSA's Director of Compliance Instead we have continued and increased violations of our rights as Americans. Of course, the real problem is that Americans don't learn about principles, history, or civic duty in any serious way. Most Americans don't really care if the government violates their rights because they don't really know what they are or why they're important. This can change quickly though, thanks to technology. I think the tide will turn soon.
  • Philipp__ 10y ago
    Obama's administration was "setting an example" a bit too much, don't you think?! They got blood of many people on their hands. ( Like Aaron Swartz':( )
    • kahrkunne 10y ago
      Swartz killed himself though. Unpopular opinion, but people need to stop acting like anybody but Swartz himself was responsible for his death. He wasn't even mistreated that bad, and he did knowingly break the law
      • yadabadabada 10y ago
        He was rich from reddit and would have had to lose all his money fighting the case...and he still might have ended up in a cage for years...Seems like pretty bad treatment over scraping academic PDFs. The response was entirely unwarranted. Violating a website's terms of service should not cost anyone their life savings or years in federal prison. A slap on the wrist? Sure...but they treated him like a "cyber terrorist" and tried to make an example of the softest possible kind of "criminal". If the PDF website doesn't have anti-crawling technology then that's their fault. He didn't do anything more than stick a laptop on MIT's network and crawl the content. Any student might have done the same...should they have their life ruined?
• eugeneionesco 10y ago
  Never going to happen, Obama administration does not like people like Snowden or Manning.
  • dinkumthinkum 10y ago
    Yeah, never going to happen, he would never pardon Manning .... oh wait ...
• toyg 10y ago
  Whether or not he gets pardoned, the fact is that you now officially have an American exiled for reasons of conscience, something that only non-democratic regimes have.
  • sneak 10y ago
    Also an Australian, being (illegally, according to the UN) indefinitely detained by proxy (US sealed indictment, and bogus Swedish arrest warrant, and illegal U.K. police action) on US orders. Turns out our government can be some real shady motherfuckers if you air their dirty laundry. They've even tortured Manning so hard she's tried to kill herself in prison, twice. (Obama publicly declared her guilty before trial.)
  • pvg 10y ago
    He left voluntarily.
    • emilsedgh 10y ago
      His passport was invalidated involuntary.
      • pvg 10y ago
        He wasn't exiled. He left the country, was charged with a crime, chose not to return. This is not how exile happens to people persecuted by authoritarian regimes. They leave under duress.
        • sp332 10y ago
          It's also what happens to actual criminals, so it's not that useful as a differentiator.
          • pvg 10y ago
            What state commonly exiles its own citizens that are actual criminals?
• chvid 10y ago
  The sad thruth is that Obama is more likely to issue a pardon for Hillary Clinton than for Edward Snowden.
• benevol 10y ago
  Obama is clearly pro-mass-surveillance [0] and certainly has been all the time. So there is no way he will pardon Snowden (even if it's The Right Thing to do). [0] Barely a week before he leaves office, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has authorized controversial new legislation that grants America’s 16 intelligence organizations access to raw communications data from the NSA’s surveillance efforts. [...] So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security. Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/13/the-nsa-can-now-share-unfiltered-surveillance-data-with-other-intelligence-agencies/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/13/the-nsa-can-now-share-unfi...
  • devoply 10y ago
    If he was willing to pardon Chelsea Manning, they should have written 1M signature petition for that instead. She has already served plenty of time. It would be good if he were to let her out before he goes. She's dying in there.
    • peteretep 10y ago
      Could you succinctly outline the case for pardoning Chelsea? My simplistic overview is that she leaked a bunch of somewhat interesting confidential information because she was pissed off with the people she was serving with. Sucks she's being made an example of, but that's presumably why these punitive sentences exist? I see this as being in contrast with Snowden, whose revelations have (perhaps) led to politicians prioritising oversight of surveillance, and whose actions claimed to be motivated by an attempt to protect citizens' rights.
      • pvg 10y ago
        The case being made (and there is some reporting this is being considered by the administration) is for commuting her sentence, not pardoning her.
      • 10y ago
• vidoc 10y ago
  Besides, I need to confess not being a big believer in clicktivism (just a personal opinion) and I would love to hear alternative suggestions to support Mr Snowden in a similarly lazy, albeit possibly a bit more useful way -> financially. Google took me here: https://edwardsnowden.com/donate/ https://edwardsnowden.com/donate/ I'm sure helping his lawyers will help him indirectly but suggestions would be appreciated!
• gerardnll 10y ago
  WTF? The main image is 4.4MBytes?!! Who did that? It slows down Chrome making the website lag until it is loaded...
• hetfeld 10y ago
  Pardon russian spy.
  • sctb 10y ago
    This account has recently been posting mostly uncivil or unsubstantive comments. Please stop and (re-)read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • hetfeld 10y ago
      stfu
      • sctb 10y ago
        We've banned this account for continuing to violate the guidelines after we've asked you to please stop. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll continue to post only civilly and substantively.
• Jugurtha 10y ago
  Here's my previous comment on an Ask HN wondering why the U.S. didn't get Snowden: >They could if they wanted to. Do they want to? If they get him to the U.S., they'd have to deal with him. I don't think they want to get him because it'd dramatically limit their options and possibly set a precedent with far-reaching consequences (is he a traitor? is he a hero? what does it mean to be either? is the public ready? how well would a pardon be received? if they pardon him, who else would they have to pardon? what does it mean to leak sensitive information? what does that mean for cases of espionage?) Why address the elephant in the room when you shouldn't have brought an elephant in the room in the first place? Just let the elephant where he is. There are examples of lenient sentencing, though. Former U.S. Chief of Staff to the Vice President, "Scooter" Libby, was not pardoned after he had blown the cover of an intelligence officer (classified information) to a news outlet. He was disbarred, but not forced to exile. He was reinstated a few months ago, ten years after the events. I think Snowden being in the spotlight cuts both ways: on the one hand he stays relevant, people don't forget about him, and it'd be a complication if anything were to happen to him.. On the other hand, it makes it much, much, harder to pardon him and to regain his former life. (It would be easier if it were done discreetly, but discretion is out of the question now. Finally: this could also be one hell of an intelligence operation, placing Snowden just right inside a country that is clearly on the rise and representing a challenge for the U.S.. Heads: China. Tails: Russia. Of all the countries in the world. This would be an operation for the books.
• megous 10y ago
  Obama is the worst president for whistleblowers and leakers in american history, by far, having prosecuted more of them for espionage than all presidents before him combined. So this would be quite a surprise.
• throw2016 10y ago
  Obama is a massive disappointment. His clearly pro surveillance actions, support for the Syria war and needless belligerance towards Russia are a complete mystery coming from a democrat and given his public posturing as a 'reasonable person'. Everytime you intervene and rock a boat there are severe consequences for tens of millions of people. It cannot be the kind of casual action we have been taking for decades. Basic human stuff. When it comes to refugees the 'empathy' dissipates quickly and we cannot even absorb hundreds. If these kind of actions was about sincerely caring about other people why would this be? Given the kind of aggressive civic activism seen for Jan 20 one would conclude people just don't care about surveillance enough or we would see similar levels of activism. But it's also interesting to consider the levels of propaganda at play and the need to 'organize' and fund certain actions. There are enough special interests to do the former but not enough for the latter. For a average citizen even before you start organizing you will end up on dozens of lists and the security state will make your life difficult.
• jgalt212 10y ago
  At first I was anti-Snowdon, (he's a traitor and deserter). Then I was pro-Snowdon (so much stuff he's opened our eyes to). And now once again, I am anti-Snowdon (there's just too much circumstantial evidence that he's assisting the Russians/Putin).
  • contras1970 10y ago
    do you have any links?
    • jgalt212 10y ago
      this took about 30 seconds: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/edward-snowden-russian-agents-house-report-232917 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/edward-snowden-russian... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/22/edward-snowden-russia-spy-agency-contact-us-house-report https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/22/edward-snowd... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/22/is-snowden-working-for-the-russians/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/...
      • glitchdout 10y ago
        NSA trying to poison the well. Meh, keep trying, shill https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
        • jgalt212 10y ago
          you either don't understand what the word shill means, or are making an ad hominem attack.
      • contras1970 10y ago
        do you have any credible sources? the House report is a (sad) joke, and Rogers is a liar.
      • glitchdout 10y ago
• burntrelish1273 10y ago
  Snowden, Assange, Manning, Schwartz (RIP) ... Maybe Peltier.
• netsec_burn 10y ago
  There seem to be a lot of comments here saying that if Snowden is pardoned, it will set a precedent that it's okay to leak government secrets. This is actually a straw man because that's not addressing what Snowden did. Snowden tried to responsibility report the issues and he hit a wall. He realized that the option to handle it internally didn't exist, so he did not have any other choice. Pardoning Snowden is perfectly acceptable since reform is and was needed in those areas.
  • irishcoffee 10y ago
    > Snowden tried to responsibility report the issues and he hit a wall. He realized that the option to handle it internally didn't exist, so he did not have any other choice. I uh... no that is just not even a little bit true.
    • peteretep 10y ago
      Help us understand then, and tell us what really happened
    • jeffbush 10y ago
      Vice published emails via FOIA that suggest he had made concerns known before leaking: https://news.vice.com/story/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-nsa-about-his-concerns https://news.vice.com/story/exclusive-snowden-tried-to-tell-... This suggests it is at least a little bit true
      • notahacker 10y ago
        It might well be true, but the details of the VICE story (one email from Snowden asking a question about whether a training programme was correct in asserting that executive orders were equivalent to acts of congress, and a belatedly acknowledged meeting with a compliance trainer which the compliance trainer says consisted of Snowden complaining about "trick questions" ) don't really back up the clickbaity headline... (my clickbaity headline would be "NSA appears to lack competence at searching its own email")
• JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  These petitions are silly. If you want to do something, commit to annoying your representatives. Every few months write or call in and remind them that you care about net neutrality, encryption and Edward Snowden as a symbol. Before elections ask them if they share your views on these issues. Write a letter to the editor or op ed in your local, hometown paper. Political change takes work. If you can't be bothered more than than clicking a button online, you're sending a message to our elected representatives on how you prioritise issues.
  • benevol 10y ago
    > These petitions are silly. Yes, because they probably don't result in the desired decisions. No, because they send a signal, letting everybody know "no, you're not the only one thinking things need to change urgently now". If we feel alone, we tend to not take any action. If we are part of a group, we feel empowered and take action, sooner or later. This is what such petitions may achieve.
    • JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      Petitions don't encourage organisation nor repetition, the two elements of successful political mobilisation. They're one offs by disjointed individuals of dubious commitment. Worse, they promote complacency. ("I sure showed them by signing that petition!") Getting rid of disgruntled constituents by having them press an Internet button is a politician's dream. Petitions--particularly written ones--brought forth by an organised body, or used to organise one, can be powerful. Internet petitions aren't those.
      • caseysoftware 10y ago
        Slacktivism at its finest. And then the Administration picks and chooses what they respond to. They'll ignore this one but since they responded to the Death Star one, they must be cool!
    • nickpsecurity 10y ago
      I've seen hundreds of them. They didn't do shit. Whereas, people and companies doing what parent is claiming during SOPA battle led to it being beaten. It's just one example among many where pestering politicians worried about lost votes resulted in a little win for the people. Better to do what gets results occasionally than what doesn't do anything.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• fredgrott 10y ago
  Seems somewhat naive in that you can only pardon those who have been convicted. More of a statement of how the common US American public understands how the US government works.
  • sparky_z 10y ago
    Not remotely true. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
  • colinbartlett 10y ago
    > In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." [1] 1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
• dllthomas 10y ago
  Obama has decided he would rather lie about the pardon power than actually own any decision around pardons - both around Snowden ("I can't pardon before trial") and around DACA ("I can't pardon en masse"). There is clear precedent for both, historic and recent. I can't imagine he's unaware of this, I don't understand why he'd choose to lie so flagrantly, and as someone who has supported him a bit more than not it really makes me wonder what else he's been lying about.
• prirun 10y ago
  I think Snowden would be a fool to come back to the US, under any circumstances (and he's obviously no fool). Even if he is pardoned, they will find some other charge to make his life hell to set an example for others. He can never come back. I admire him for his convictions and thank him for his sacrifice so that we would have the truth.
• Glyptodon 10y ago
  I think it's bizarre he's supposedly considering pardoning Manning but not Snowden when only one of them was acting in a highly-contemplated civic-minded way.