4 ms·

This is just him giving the bird to tech while doing some key influential people a favor. Frankly I think he should pardon Snowden and Assange (if he's gonna g

This is just him giving the bird to tech while doing some key influential people a favor. Frankly I think he should pardon Snowden and Assange (if he's gonna give people the bird why not extend it to the establishment) and Joe Exotic (because the lulz of doing that would be on brand for him) while he's at it. Unlike Levandowsky, Snowden and (to a lesser extent) Assange are deserving of pardons in much of the public's eyes.

Dirlewanger 6y ago
Was really hoping for Snowden. Would have been the perfect FU to Obama/Biden.
mjburgess 6y ago
I would say leakers of this kind maybe shouldn't be actively pursued by the justice department outside of the USA. But either (1) pardoning; or (2) failing to pursue within USA; is a tall order. It licences the principle that intelligence can be leaked without legal consequence "by the conscience" of the leaker. Is that really how intelligence should be conducted? Most people are idiots; and do not know the ramifications of what they do. It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable. Ie., it is Good that these leaks occured, but nevertheless, we require the leakers to pay some cost for it. If that cost is "in practice" merely exile from the country, that seems a reasonable compromise.
- Bodell 6y ago
  If our justice system does not represent some bid for moral rightness (as flawed as it may be) then what is the point of justice at all? The leakers crimes is in these two cases were mostly pointing out others much weightier violations of the law. Those others have received no punishment, no cost for their crimes. Also, putting the word “merely” before ‘exiled indefinitely from your home’ is personally baffling to me. Especially since one of these people does not live in the US and “in practice” both their lives either were or still are in jeopardy. Edit: I do think I understand your overall point though. Actually leaking information should be a very serious decision, and should not be taken lightly.
  - jblwps 6y ago
    Civil disobedience isn't about avoiding the consequences of that disobedience; it's about doing the right thing even though it's illegal and requires punishment. If your concept of justice can account for civil disobedience like that, that is. That is to say, if e.g. Snowden's actions were civil disobedience, it's not incoherent to say both that: 1. He was right to leak the info, and 2. He need not be pardoned in the name of justice.
    - Bodell 6y ago
      Luckily for you this is exactly how it works in these instances. Those who do right action suffer punishment. While those who did wrong get a free pass to continue doing such. And I do believe this is inconsistent if you believe that justice has anything to do with right and wrong actions. Your argument is: 1. There are right and wrong actions. 2. Justice does not decide or even attempt at determining right and wrong. 3. Therefore doing something right or wrong has no bearing on the outcome of our justice system. As an individual, what your are saying is important and I agree. We have to call upon ourselves to do the right thing in spite of the consequences. But often times civil disobedience seeks to change the injustice of the current system and if that system never changes or adapts as a result then the outcome will always be the same. This may have happened in the case with Snowden (though we can still correct it) but it has not been the same throughout history. I’m very glad that we did not simply exile all our civil rights leaders with no thought given toward bringing a greater sense of fairness to our judicial systems.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  > It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable. I take extreme exception to the idea that somebody should be punished for an act generally considered moral by the public for the purpose of dissuading others. If some idiot takes it upon themselves, based on a pardon of Snowden, to reveal something not in the public interest and harmful to the state, let them be punished as a warning to others. Leaks of state secrets have been a reality since the beginning of civilisation, one more isn't going to destroy us.
PeterisP 6y ago
At least for me it seems that Snowden and Assange are considered deserving of pardons by the part of public which are anti-Trump and the Trump "core audience" would rather pardoning them as insulting.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I think the "Trump core audience" sees Snowden in a positive light. I would venture a guess that the only the people of the "swamp" (i.e. people who's pay stubs have the seal of a TLA at the top) are against Snowden's pardon. Snowden did everything right. He read the room (i.e. looked at what happened to people who used the "proper channels") and leaked more or less the minimum to expose programs that are constitutionally indefensible without some serious mental gymnastics. Assange is much more controversial, especially now that he won't be extradited and prosecuted, since his crimes are much more political and he wasn't tactful like Snowden, he published everything he got. There's definitely less public support for his pardon but if the goal is to give the middle finger to the establishment this is the better one because it is controversial.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

Was really hoping for Snowden. Would have been the perfect FU to Obama/Biden.

mjburgess 6y ago

I would say leakers of this kind maybe shouldn't be actively pursued by the justice department outside of the USA. But either (1) pardoning; or (2) failing to pursue within USA; is a tall order. It licences the principle that intelligence can be leaked without legal consequence "by the conscience" of the leaker. Is that really how intelligence should be conducted? Most people are idiots; and do not know the ramifications of what they do. It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable. Ie., it is Good that these leaks occured, but nevertheless, we require the leakers to pay some cost for it. If that cost is "in practice" merely exile from the country, that seems a reasonable compromise.

Bodell 6y ago
If our justice system does not represent some bid for moral rightness (as flawed as it may be) then what is the point of justice at all? The leakers crimes is in these two cases were mostly pointing out others much weightier violations of the law. Those others have received no punishment, no cost for their crimes. Also, putting the word “merely” before ‘exiled indefinitely from your home’ is personally baffling to me. Especially since one of these people does not live in the US and “in practice” both their lives either were or still are in jeopardy. Edit: I do think I understand your overall point though. Actually leaking information should be a very serious decision, and should not be taken lightly.
- jblwps 6y ago
  Civil disobedience isn't about avoiding the consequences of that disobedience; it's about doing the right thing even though it's illegal and requires punishment. If your concept of justice can account for civil disobedience like that, that is. That is to say, if e.g. Snowden's actions were civil disobedience, it's not incoherent to say both that: 1. He was right to leak the info, and 2. He need not be pardoned in the name of justice.
  - Bodell 6y ago
    Luckily for you this is exactly how it works in these instances. Those who do right action suffer punishment. While those who did wrong get a free pass to continue doing such. And I do believe this is inconsistent if you believe that justice has anything to do with right and wrong actions. Your argument is: 1. There are right and wrong actions. 2. Justice does not decide or even attempt at determining right and wrong. 3. Therefore doing something right or wrong has no bearing on the outcome of our justice system. As an individual, what your are saying is important and I agree. We have to call upon ourselves to do the right thing in spite of the consequences. But often times civil disobedience seeks to change the injustice of the current system and if that system never changes or adapts as a result then the outcome will always be the same. This may have happened in the case with Snowden (though we can still correct it) but it has not been the same throughout history. I’m very glad that we did not simply exile all our civil rights leaders with no thought given toward bringing a greater sense of fairness to our judicial systems.
wyattpeak 6y ago
> It is perfectly reasonable for something to be both moral and illegal, and remain punishable. I take extreme exception to the idea that somebody should be punished for an act generally considered moral by the public for the purpose of dissuading others. If some idiot takes it upon themselves, based on a pardon of Snowden, to reveal something not in the public interest and harmful to the state, let them be punished as a warning to others. Leaks of state secrets have been a reality since the beginning of civilisation, one more isn't going to destroy us.

PeterisP 6y ago

At least for me it seems that Snowden and Assange are considered deserving of pardons by the part of public which are anti-Trump and the Trump "core audience" would rather pardoning them as insulting.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I think the "Trump core audience" sees Snowden in a positive light. I would venture a guess that the only the people of the "swamp" (i.e. people who's pay stubs have the seal of a TLA at the top) are against Snowden's pardon. Snowden did everything right. He read the room (i.e. looked at what happened to people who used the "proper channels") and leaked more or less the minimum to expose programs that are constitutionally indefensible without some serious mental gymnastics. Assange is much more controversial, especially now that he won't be extradited and prosecuted, since his crimes are much more political and he wasn't tactful like Snowden, he published everything he got. There's definitely less public support for his pardon but if the goal is to give the middle finger to the establishment this is the better one because it is controversial.