4 ms·

And an unconditional pardon doesn't solve things long term anyway. We need to stop things like the Espionage Act which makes leaking a defenceless crime.

by yanks 11y ago

meowface 11y ago
But where do you draw the line? If you accept that Top Secret information should exist, how do you determine what sort of information leaks are ethical, and which are just pointless and reckless, even if the leaker's intent is not espionage or treason? You can't really say "the law", since a large portion of what the NSA is doing is legal under the PATRIOT Act and various intelligence bills and processes. And you can't really say "the Constitution" either, since only the Supreme Court truly possesses that power. I do think Snowden should be pardoned, and I think his intentions were pure and he mostly acted properly (though I do have a few issues with some aspects of how he handled it), but the Espionage Act exists for a reason.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You can't really say "the law", since a large portion of what the NSA is doing is legal under the PATRIOT Act and various intelligence bills and processes. And you can't really say "the Constitution" either, since only the Supreme Court truly possesses that power. The Supreme Court may be the final arbiter (within the system of government, at least) when there is a controversy over what is constitutional, but it does not mean that they are the only entity that has the power or obligation to interpret and act on the Constitution even when other laws purport to mandate something contrary to it. > but the Espionage Act exists for a reason. The Espionage Act may exist for a legitimate reason, but the manner in which it purports to serve that reason has been the subject of serious and sustained criticism from pretty shortly after it was adopted nearly a century ago. It might be a good idea to rethink it from first principles, rather than accepting a framework laid out in the early-20th Century Red Scare and then tightened under McCarthyism.
- LLWM 11y ago
  Why can't you say the law? Seems like you're assuming that everyone disagrees with what the NSA has been doing, which is totally off base.
- yanks 11y ago
  I cited the Espionage Act specifically because it has almost exclusively been used against leakers in recent years because there is not legal defense for a leaker who releases something that is in the common people's best interest to have released. There is essentially no defense Snowden's lawyers can take against that charge where they could possibly win, and that in itself is a big issue. We don't need to make leaking all things all the time legal, but we need our legal system and our courts to have the option to decide whether or not something is in the people's best interest to have released and then pardon those leakers on a case by case basis, punishing those who aren't. It's a case of balance.

And an unconditional pardon doesn't solve things long term anyway. We need to stop things like the Espionage Act which makes leaking a defenceless crime.

by yanks 11y ago

And an unconditional pardon doesn't solve things long term anyway. We need to stop things like the Espionage Act which makes leaking a defenceless crime.

meowface 11y ago

But where do you draw the line? If you accept that Top Secret information should exist, how do you determine what sort of information leaks are ethical, and which are just pointless and reckless, even if the leaker's intent is not espionage or treason? You can't really say "the law", since a large portion of what the NSA is doing is legal under the PATRIOT Act and various intelligence bills and processes. And you can't really say "the Constitution" either, since only the Supreme Court truly possesses that power. I do think Snowden should be pardoned, and I think his intentions were pure and he mostly acted properly (though I do have a few issues with some aspects of how he handled it), but the Espionage Act exists for a reason.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> You can't really say "the law", since a large portion of what the NSA is doing is legal under the PATRIOT Act and various intelligence bills and processes. And you can't really say "the Constitution" either, since only the Supreme Court truly possesses that power. The Supreme Court may be the final arbiter (within the system of government, at least) when there is a controversy over what is constitutional, but it does not mean that they are the only entity that has the power or obligation to interpret and act on the Constitution even when other laws purport to mandate something contrary to it. > but the Espionage Act exists for a reason. The Espionage Act may exist for a legitimate reason, but the manner in which it purports to serve that reason has been the subject of serious and sustained criticism from pretty shortly after it was adopted nearly a century ago. It might be a good idea to rethink it from first principles, rather than accepting a framework laid out in the early-20th Century Red Scare and then tightened under McCarthyism.
LLWM 11y ago
Why can't you say the law? Seems like you're assuming that everyone disagrees with what the NSA has been doing, which is totally off base.
yanks 11y ago
I cited the Espionage Act specifically because it has almost exclusively been used against leakers in recent years because there is not legal defense for a leaker who releases something that is in the common people's best interest to have released. There is essentially no defense Snowden's lawyers can take against that charge where they could possibly win, and that in itself is a big issue. We don't need to make leaking all things all the time legal, but we need our legal system and our courts to have the option to decide whether or not something is in the people's best interest to have released and then pardon those leakers on a case by case basis, punishing those who aren't. It's a case of balance.