6 ms·

Obama "acknowledges" Edward Snowden's role in triggering a public debate. Does this mean Mr. Snowden is officially a whistleblower-hero, or still a traitor who

Obama "acknowledges" Edward Snowden's role in triggering a public debate. Does this mean Mr. Snowden is officially a whistleblower-hero, or still a traitor who deserves life imprisonment? As for the notion of requiring private telecomm companies to store data and provide access to the gov't, although still just a hypothetical situation and not yet policy, would this not simply shift the burden from the NSA to private companies? Obviously, they're already handing over the data, but making it all official and open seems like a retrogressive policy that would in the long run backfire as Americans turn to overseas hosted services not beholden to the NSA. Perhaps even the domestic telecomm firms could get around it by offshoring their data storage and transmission services, such that the only domestic components would be the towers and switches, while the repositories of customer data would be safely overseas under some other entity's control (also not ideal, argh).

diminoten 13y ago
What Obama said is pretty clear: "The fact is, is that Mr. Snowden's been charged with 3 felonies. If in fact he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case." What Obama thinks Snowden "deserves" is irrelevant. Snowden's status as a "traitor" is as yet undetermined, and until he stands trial for the crimes he's being charged with, we won't know.
- evan_ 13y ago
  > What Obama thinks Snowden "deserves" is irrelevant. Sort of. Obama has the ability to pardon Snowden, if he felt strongly about it.
  - dmix 13y ago
    Only after he's been tried?
    - lostcolony 13y ago
      Ford pardoned Nixon without Nixon ever going to trial. So no, don't think it's necessary.
  - lostcolony 13y ago
    It is also perfectly legal to hold a trial where he is represented by counsel, rather than physically present. So if they were serious about trying to achieve 'justice', they could. But they're not. They're serious about trying to get him back on US soil. Which doesn't really speak well of their intentions.
    - jljljl 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure if they did this, we would have a bunch of posts on this very forum decrying the trial as a "show trial", where Snowden does not have the ability to speak for himself or present his own defense. Whatever counsel they choose would be dismissed as a government puppet, and the result would have no impact on how people think.
      - panacea 13y ago
        Not if the 'show trial' vindicated him.
        jljljl 13y ago
        My point exactly. This forum has already reached its conclusion. Anything other outcome would be unacceptable.
  - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
    Precisely. Of course, somewhere down the line Snowden could get in trouble for something else, failure to pay 2013 income taxes for example. EDIT: my meaning is that if the Justice Dept. wants to nail him, they will have options regardless.
  - tribe 13y ago
    Since he has not been convicted, he would only need to get the DOJ to drop the charges, not pardon him, right?
    - Crito 13y ago
      As I understand it, that would leave open the possibility of charges being brought against him again in the future, provided it never got beyond the "charges" stage.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Ignoring ethics for a moment (heh), one has to consider the ramifications a pardon such as that would send. That's tacit endorsement from the president of the US for everyone who thinks wrongdoings are going on to come out and tell the world, regardless of the chain-of-command, regardless of any oaths these people have taken - it's basically carte blanch permission for people in the government to start leaking privileged information. I can't think of a way to pardon Snowden without sending that kind of message - you can't say, "Only do this if you're really sure what's happening is super bad." So yeah, he could pardon Snowden, but the consequences could be ruinous to the US, even if it is "The Right Thing" to do.
    - lostcolony 13y ago
      Right. Much better to send the message that even if the disclosure proves warranted, even if we end up agreeing that reforms are needed, even if it's clear that the 'appropriate channels' are broken, if you disclose we'll hound and pursue you to the ends of the earth. /sarcasm Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers led to charges, that were later dropped, and we didn't see some huge number of whistleblowers. So I assert your claim is a poor one. History has not shown that granting a pardon to a whistleblower has led to inappropriate leaking, and the chilling effect of not doing it when appropriate (or deciding it's not appropriate when it clearly was, such as now), is not worth the trade off.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        I don't think history can help us here, as 1960/1970 was a fundamentally different time than now. It's infinitely easier to proliferate information to the population, and there are no barriers to doing so now, whereas the newspapers were gatekeepers of public dissemination when Ellsberg did what he did.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        the newspapers were gatekeepers of public dissemination when Ellsberg did what he did They are still in the Snowden case as well. Also, to declare that history cannot help in the analysis of a problem in the present is to admit defeat. To fully understand the present, the only real tool you have is history.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Even if Snowden were to return to the US to face "justice," as one of his supporters I would expect nothing more than a show trial. We'd be relying on a legal system that has already been completely compromised to render political outcomes rather than legal ones, and there's too many "powerful" people who have been shown to be terrible liars and dishonest by Snowden's revelations for him to get a fair shake.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment - while not proven, I think we can both agree that Snowden broke the law as it's currently written, and that it'd be trivially easy to prove as such. The only question during this trial would be related to the jury and the judge. Those are the two sets of people who would be able to realistically intervene on Snowden's behalf without risking the federal government's endorsement of leaking privileged information to the public, and even then the judge would be setting an alarming precedent for future cases involving the leak of privileged info.
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      I agree that Snowden broke the law on divulging classified materials, as it codified. What I'm concerned about is the show trial where the Administration gets to trot out whatever stories they want to make up about how he provided "aid and comfort to the enemy." Those who want to "get" Snowden have already shown that they have no compunction about lying under oath, so that is where my fear originates.
    - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
      I agree, that most probably, Snowden broke the law (I am no expert in US laws). But again: US gov. has double standards. When Snowden breaks a law, he will most likely be hung (or worse), but if members of Us agencies breaks hundred, thousands, even million times laws of human rights and the US constitution, they will be either promoted or get an automatic pardon from the president (as Obama did directly after election). That stinks and is a SHAME for the whole "western world".
- Crito 13y ago
  > "If in fact he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case." What you see here is Obama conflating (intentionally, of course) the notion of "right" and "legal". Snowden thinks what he did was right. He does not believe that will save him in a court room, which in theory determines legality. That is why he fled the country; not because he does not really believe that what he did was right.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - diminoten 13y ago
    The law is supposed to reflect the morality of the country. It should be unsurprising that the US president thinks that US laws are, on the whole, aligned with the country's general morality.
    - geoka9 13y ago
      Well, we're not talking US laws "on the whole". It's about the few specific ones Snowden has been charged breaking.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >The law is supposed to reflect the morality of the country. The law has always been reflecting the power balance and nothing more. It reflects morality only as a consequence of and to the extent to which moral people have power.
    - Crito 13y ago
      It is suppose to be an approximation of it, but it is important to recognize that it is not itself it. It should be the case that the law and morality align, but if we want to ensure that they do align and continue to align in the future, then recognition that the law is an approximation of morality rather that the definition of it is vital. If we mistake the law for a definition of morality, then it becomes impossible by definition for the law to be wrong. The President must realize that the law does not define morality. And of course he does; born in 1961 he is beyond doubt keenly aware that US laws do not define morality. He is conflating the concepts for political reasons.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  We would probably end up with Edith Snowden (Like Bradley, er Chelsea Manning). Seriously - with Gitmo et al, why would anyone put themselves at the tender mercies of our justice system when high-level personnel have it out for them?
- tootie 13y ago
  You're a traitor the second you commit treason. You just can't be sent to jail until it's proven in court. Most of the recent attempts to convict people on espionage or similar charges have failed in court. Manning's case is still pending. Snowden would almost certainly be convicted of something. Treason seems highly unlikely.

diminoten 13y ago

What Obama said is pretty clear: "The fact is, is that Mr. Snowden's been charged with 3 felonies. If in fact he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case." What Obama thinks Snowden "deserves" is irrelevant. Snowden's status as a "traitor" is as yet undetermined, and until he stands trial for the crimes he's being charged with, we won't know.

evan_ 13y ago
> What Obama thinks Snowden "deserves" is irrelevant. Sort of. Obama has the ability to pardon Snowden, if he felt strongly about it.
- dmix 13y ago
  Only after he's been tried?
  - lostcolony 13y ago
    Ford pardoned Nixon without Nixon ever going to trial. So no, don't think it's necessary.
- lostcolony 13y ago
  It is also perfectly legal to hold a trial where he is represented by counsel, rather than physically present. So if they were serious about trying to achieve 'justice', they could. But they're not. They're serious about trying to get him back on US soil. Which doesn't really speak well of their intentions.
  - jljljl 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure if they did this, we would have a bunch of posts on this very forum decrying the trial as a "show trial", where Snowden does not have the ability to speak for himself or present his own defense. Whatever counsel they choose would be dismissed as a government puppet, and the result would have no impact on how people think.
    - panacea 13y ago
      Not if the 'show trial' vindicated him.
      - jljljl 13y ago
        My point exactly. This forum has already reached its conclusion. Anything other outcome would be unacceptable.
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  Precisely. Of course, somewhere down the line Snowden could get in trouble for something else, failure to pay 2013 income taxes for example. EDIT: my meaning is that if the Justice Dept. wants to nail him, they will have options regardless.
- tribe 13y ago
  Since he has not been convicted, he would only need to get the DOJ to drop the charges, not pardon him, right?
  - Crito 13y ago
    As I understand it, that would leave open the possibility of charges being brought against him again in the future, provided it never got beyond the "charges" stage.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Ignoring ethics for a moment (heh), one has to consider the ramifications a pardon such as that would send. That's tacit endorsement from the president of the US for everyone who thinks wrongdoings are going on to come out and tell the world, regardless of the chain-of-command, regardless of any oaths these people have taken - it's basically carte blanch permission for people in the government to start leaking privileged information. I can't think of a way to pardon Snowden without sending that kind of message - you can't say, "Only do this if you're really sure what's happening is super bad." So yeah, he could pardon Snowden, but the consequences could be ruinous to the US, even if it is "The Right Thing" to do.
  - lostcolony 13y ago
    Right. Much better to send the message that even if the disclosure proves warranted, even if we end up agreeing that reforms are needed, even if it's clear that the 'appropriate channels' are broken, if you disclose we'll hound and pursue you to the ends of the earth. /sarcasm Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers led to charges, that were later dropped, and we didn't see some huge number of whistleblowers. So I assert your claim is a poor one. History has not shown that granting a pardon to a whistleblower has led to inappropriate leaking, and the chilling effect of not doing it when appropriate (or deciding it's not appropriate when it clearly was, such as now), is not worth the trade off.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      I don't think history can help us here, as 1960/1970 was a fundamentally different time than now. It's infinitely easier to proliferate information to the population, and there are no barriers to doing so now, whereas the newspapers were gatekeepers of public dissemination when Ellsberg did what he did.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        the newspapers were gatekeepers of public dissemination when Ellsberg did what he did They are still in the Snowden case as well. Also, to declare that history cannot help in the analysis of a problem in the present is to admit defeat. To fully understand the present, the only real tool you have is history.
wavefunction 13y ago
Even if Snowden were to return to the US to face "justice," as one of his supporters I would expect nothing more than a show trial. We'd be relying on a legal system that has already been completely compromised to render political outcomes rather than legal ones, and there's too many "powerful" people who have been shown to be terrible liars and dishonest by Snowden's revelations for him to get a fair shake.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment - while not proven, I think we can both agree that Snowden broke the law as it's currently written, and that it'd be trivially easy to prove as such. The only question during this trial would be related to the jury and the judge. Those are the two sets of people who would be able to realistically intervene on Snowden's behalf without risking the federal government's endorsement of leaking privileged information to the public, and even then the judge would be setting an alarming precedent for future cases involving the leak of privileged info.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    I agree that Snowden broke the law on divulging classified materials, as it codified. What I'm concerned about is the show trial where the Administration gets to trot out whatever stories they want to make up about how he provided "aid and comfort to the enemy." Those who want to "get" Snowden have already shown that they have no compunction about lying under oath, so that is where my fear originates.
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    I agree, that most probably, Snowden broke the law (I am no expert in US laws). But again: US gov. has double standards. When Snowden breaks a law, he will most likely be hung (or worse), but if members of Us agencies breaks hundred, thousands, even million times laws of human rights and the US constitution, they will be either promoted or get an automatic pardon from the president (as Obama did directly after election). That stinks and is a SHAME for the whole "western world".
Crito 13y ago
> "If in fact he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case." What you see here is Obama conflating (intentionally, of course) the notion of "right" and "legal". Snowden thinks what he did was right. He does not believe that will save him in a court room, which in theory determines legality. That is why he fled the country; not because he does not really believe that what he did was right.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- diminoten 13y ago
  The law is supposed to reflect the morality of the country. It should be unsurprising that the US president thinks that US laws are, on the whole, aligned with the country's general morality.
  - geoka9 13y ago
    Well, we're not talking US laws "on the whole". It's about the few specific ones Snowden has been charged breaking.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >The law is supposed to reflect the morality of the country. The law has always been reflecting the power balance and nothing more. It reflects morality only as a consequence of and to the extent to which moral people have power.
  - Crito 13y ago
    It is suppose to be an approximation of it, but it is important to recognize that it is not itself it. It should be the case that the law and morality align, but if we want to ensure that they do align and continue to align in the future, then recognition that the law is an approximation of morality rather that the definition of it is vital. If we mistake the law for a definition of morality, then it becomes impossible by definition for the law to be wrong. The President must realize that the law does not define morality. And of course he does; born in 1961 he is beyond doubt keenly aware that US laws do not define morality. He is conflating the concepts for political reasons.
AutoCorrect 13y ago
We would probably end up with Edith Snowden (Like Bradley, er Chelsea Manning). Seriously - with Gitmo et al, why would anyone put themselves at the tender mercies of our justice system when high-level personnel have it out for them?
tootie 13y ago
You're a traitor the second you commit treason. You just can't be sent to jail until it's proven in court. Most of the recent attempts to convict people on espionage or similar charges have failed in court. Manning's case is still pending. Snowden would almost certainly be convicted of something. Treason seems highly unlikely.