3 ms·

The concern is with precedence, and the idea that sets in that some types of classified data leaks are "more equal" than others. Lynching of black people in th

by mpyne 13y ago

The concern is with precedence, and the idea that sets in that some types of classified data leaks are "more equal" than others. Lynching of black people in the Jim Crow South were often attributed officially to "unknown parties of a mob" even when there was clear photographic evidence of white ringleaders. White murderers knew that the fiction of official non-recognition was not a rule, yet the reality of the precedent thus set led to many other mob lynchings. All of this is to say that even though a pardon is not a rule and should be recognized as such, that only helps matters if every potential future leaker sees it as an exception and not a new precedent.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The concern is with precedence, and the idea that sets in that some types of classified data leaks are "more equal" than others. Some types of classified data leaks are more equal than others. The same is true of violations of any criminal law. That's why the pardon power exists (and, in part, why jury nullification is important) -- because no law can ever perfectly account for all edge cases. > Lynching of black people in the Jim Crow South were often attributed officially to "unknown parties of a mob" even when there was clear photographic evidence of white ringleaders. That repeated pattern of false portrayals to put a public face on a decision not to prosecute is very different than a pardon that does not deny that a crime was committed, and does not falsely assert ambiguity in the identity of the responsible party, etc.
- mpyne 13y ago
  But given that the pardon involves a wide swath of classified data disclosures, only a minority of which have any obvious "American civil liberties!" tie, how do our hypothetical future leaker determine that a pardon might be appropriate for him, while a hypothetical future spy determines that a pardon would not be granted in their case (especially if they leak something of public import simultaneously)? A pardon sends a very mixed message here, precisely because Snowden has crafted a very mixed message.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Pardons are purely discretionary acts of Presidents, not applications of legal principles that any reasonable person can expect to be applied in future cases; absent a pattern by multiple Presidents, no sane person would see a past pardon as a reliable precedent—at most it's a source of hope that if a similar political situation is created as a result of the act that there might conceivably be a similar result.

by mpyne 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The concern is with precedence, and the idea that sets in that some types of classified data leaks are "more equal" than others. Some types of classified data leaks are more equal than others. The same is true of violations of any criminal law. That's why the pardon power exists (and, in part, why jury nullification is important) -- because no law can ever perfectly account for all edge cases. > Lynching of black people in the Jim Crow South were often attributed officially to "unknown parties of a mob" even when there was clear photographic evidence of white ringleaders. That repeated pattern of false portrayals to put a public face on a decision not to prosecute is very different than a pardon that does not deny that a crime was committed, and does not falsely assert ambiguity in the identity of the responsible party, etc.

mpyne 13y ago
But given that the pardon involves a wide swath of classified data disclosures, only a minority of which have any obvious "American civil liberties!" tie, how do our hypothetical future leaker determine that a pardon might be appropriate for him, while a hypothetical future spy determines that a pardon would not be granted in their case (especially if they leak something of public import simultaneously)? A pardon sends a very mixed message here, precisely because Snowden has crafted a very mixed message.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Pardons are purely discretionary acts of Presidents, not applications of legal principles that any reasonable person can expect to be applied in future cases; absent a pattern by multiple Presidents, no sane person would see a past pardon as a reliable precedent—at most it's a source of hope that if a similar political situation is created as a result of the act that there might conceivably be a similar result.