3 ms·

Which is why there is some talk of offering him Amnesty - to find out exactly how much and what he leaked (Among other things) http://arstechnica.com/tech-polic

Which is why there is some talk of offering him Amnesty - to find out exactly how much and what he leaked (Among other things) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/report-nsa-mulls-snowden-amnesty-but-it-probably-wont-happen/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/report-nsa-mulls-...

ceejayoz 13y ago
My understanding was he doesn't have the files at this point - they're all in possession of the journalists. Snowden can't put the genie back in the bottle, and the NSA wouldn't ever trust that all copies had been destroyed. I'd be pretty dubious about taking amnesty if I were him, too. Contracts under duress aren't legitimate. Chances are decent they'd get him here, claim duress, and throw him in Guantanamo.
- lettergram 13y ago
  Talk about the riots that would cause.
  - javajosh 13y ago
    People hardly vote, why would they riot?
    - pekk 13y ago
      rioting is more fun than voting, it is violent and you can loot stores and such
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Forget Guantanamo. He's dealing with a government that has killed U.S. citizens with drone-fired missiles without due process. If I were Snowden, I'd be concerned that if I came anywhere near the reach of the U.S. government, I'd be secretly declared an "enemy combatant" and an "unfortunate accident" would happen to me.
  - sigkill 13y ago
    In a perverse despotic dictatorial way, killing US citizens is okay because "they're my slaves" kind of thing. He's dealing with a government that has killed a group of Yemeni family folks in Yemen who were allegedly attending a wedding accidentally with a drone strike. It is my imagination where they just say "Oops".
  - pekk 13y ago
    When did this ever happen? al-Aulaki's case is not at all as you described
    - dalke 13y ago
      At least 4 US citizens have been killed by US drones. Anwar al-Awlaki is the only one who was specifically targeted. His son Abdulrahman, also a US citizen, was killed two weeks later by drone, but was not specifically targeted, according to the US. The US lawyers argued "Mr. Awlaki was a lawful target because he was participating in the war with Al Qaeda and also because he was a specific threat to the country... And while the Constitution generally requires judicial process before the government may kill an American, the Supreme Court has held that in some contexts — like when the police, in order to protect innocent bystanders, ram a car to stop a high-speed chase — no prior permission from a judge is necessary; the lawyers concluded that the wartime threat posed by Mr. Awlaki qualified as such a context, and so his constitutional rights did not bar the government from killing him without a trial. ... it is not unlawful “murder” when the government kills an enemy leader in war or national self-defense [so] the foreign-killing statute would not impede a strike" [NYT, March 9, 2013]. greenyoda wrote: "He's dealing with a government that has killed U.S. citizens with drone-fired missiles without due process." It therefore comes down to what you mean by "due process." I hold with greenyoda that the circumstances around Awlaki's deliberate killing were insufficient as to allow the exception to the judicial process, and that he therefore did not receive due process owed him by birthright. You may think otherwise, but even in that case the situation as described is very close to to what greenyoda wrote. Why do you think it's "not at all" as described?
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      A drone was launched. A US citizen was killed. The fun part is connecting the dots in any way you like.
rhizome 13y ago
Keep in mind that amnesty could simply be a ruse to bring him into the country, after which they can say, "he's not telling us everything!" (see: Salim Hamdan) and arrest him based on that.

ceejayoz 13y ago

My understanding was he doesn't have the files at this point - they're all in possession of the journalists. Snowden can't put the genie back in the bottle, and the NSA wouldn't ever trust that all copies had been destroyed. I'd be pretty dubious about taking amnesty if I were him, too. Contracts under duress aren't legitimate. Chances are decent they'd get him here, claim duress, and throw him in Guantanamo.

lettergram 13y ago
Talk about the riots that would cause.
- javajosh 13y ago
  People hardly vote, why would they riot?
  - pekk 13y ago
    rioting is more fun than voting, it is violent and you can loot stores and such
greenyoda 13y ago
Forget Guantanamo. He's dealing with a government that has killed U.S. citizens with drone-fired missiles without due process. If I were Snowden, I'd be concerned that if I came anywhere near the reach of the U.S. government, I'd be secretly declared an "enemy combatant" and an "unfortunate accident" would happen to me.
- sigkill 13y ago
  In a perverse despotic dictatorial way, killing US citizens is okay because "they're my slaves" kind of thing. He's dealing with a government that has killed a group of Yemeni family folks in Yemen who were allegedly attending a wedding accidentally with a drone strike. It is my imagination where they just say "Oops".
- pekk 13y ago
  When did this ever happen? al-Aulaki's case is not at all as you described
  - dalke 13y ago
    At least 4 US citizens have been killed by US drones. Anwar al-Awlaki is the only one who was specifically targeted. His son Abdulrahman, also a US citizen, was killed two weeks later by drone, but was not specifically targeted, according to the US. The US lawyers argued "Mr. Awlaki was a lawful target because he was participating in the war with Al Qaeda and also because he was a specific threat to the country... And while the Constitution generally requires judicial process before the government may kill an American, the Supreme Court has held that in some contexts — like when the police, in order to protect innocent bystanders, ram a car to stop a high-speed chase — no prior permission from a judge is necessary; the lawyers concluded that the wartime threat posed by Mr. Awlaki qualified as such a context, and so his constitutional rights did not bar the government from killing him without a trial. ... it is not unlawful “murder” when the government kills an enemy leader in war or national self-defense [so] the foreign-killing statute would not impede a strike" [NYT, March 9, 2013]. greenyoda wrote: "He's dealing with a government that has killed U.S. citizens with drone-fired missiles without due process." It therefore comes down to what you mean by "due process." I hold with greenyoda that the circumstances around Awlaki's deliberate killing were insufficient as to allow the exception to the judicial process, and that he therefore did not receive due process owed him by birthright. You may think otherwise, but even in that case the situation as described is very close to to what greenyoda wrote. Why do you think it's "not at all" as described?
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    A drone was launched. A US citizen was killed. The fun part is connecting the dots in any way you like.

rhizome 13y ago

Keep in mind that amnesty could simply be a ruse to bring him into the country, after which they can say, "he's not telling us everything!" (see: Salim Hamdan) and arrest him based on that.