15 ms·

Let Snowden Come Home

785 points by donohoe 11y ago

tosseraccount 11y ago
Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents? Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them? Isn't this treason? Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Isn't this treason? Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason? Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. The prosecution can present their evidence.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Sometimes it cannot. Would a jury in the South in 1850 condemn or free an abolitionist? That's the problem with justice in full -- it's not just the law, and it's not just the majority opinion. The first can mostly determine compliance (with its code), the second can mostly determine popularity or prevelance of a sentiment. And they can do that only given all the facts (which they wont, e.g. how this information was used, special service people can just lie like they did to congress etc), and without undue influence from outside. For something like Snowden's case (or the slavery example), who controls the media and public discourse is quite an important factor on any jury, that's in effect even before they got selected. All that, of course, if anybody believes that there's a thing such as justice in general, and that while some things can be relative, something like slavery being bad is wrong whether the majority of people in an era thinks its ok or not.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. He's not. https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-tr... > If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant—and are therefore inadmissible in court.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > Isn't this treason? Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the US has prosecuted (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was charged under.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    The constitution says of treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution continues: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here, assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.
- smileysteve 11y ago
  > Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. > If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him. Nobody (not even him) questions whether he violated the laws as they were written, but the concept of whistleblowing suggests that these laws were knowingly violated to present unlawful laws and actions.
fourply 11y ago
It is infuriating to see SO many articles, even from publications that can usually be trusted, referring to this legislation as "commendable" or "significant reform". It is far from it, and we can't expect the couch-dwellers to pay attention while the dying gasps of the 4th estate trumpet this kind of non-change.
- herbig 11y ago
  The quote you're referring to is "The new legislation, while it is commendable as far as it goes, contains some obvious shortcomings."
  - rosser 11y ago
    But the full quote would mitigate the raging hate-on the grandparent is sporting. Yes, the USA Freedom Act is limited. Yes, it doesn't change all the things we'd all like to see changed. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." It's at least movement in the right direction. Let's try celebrating that, instead of (or at least along with) bitching that it's not movement far enough.
    - fourply 11y ago
      It's unconstitutional. Of course I have a raging hate-on - I believe in the rule of law.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Phone metadata collection is Constitutional under Smith v. Maryland.
    - shit_parade2 11y ago
      And bad is brother of worse. Slogans are easy, what's hard is recognizing the difference between political theater and meaningful change. America is tumbling into the abyss of tyranny and people celebrate.
rfrey 11y ago
"As Snowden intended, the primary impact of the leaks was on political debate inside the United States." I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies. That obviously doesn't matter in the short term; but so many things don't matter in the short term.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  I think the militarization of our local police forces and the tacit support of interdiction, confiscation and especially their extra-judicial killing of unarmed people has done more, but it's not an argument I want to win against your assertion at all.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies. The DESERVED complete erosion. I fixed it for you.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Complete erosion is a huge overstatement. In fact, we are still probably better off than we were in the dark years after the Iraq invasion.
- mr337 11y ago
  Unfortunately I think it is justified. Don't forget James Clapper lying to congress about not spying on US citizens. I also got a video of it, https://youtu.be/9LKzAsIMUx8 https://youtu.be/9LKzAsIMUx8 Last I heard he was selling a book, not from jail.
- loopdoend 11y ago
  if only Canadian leadership were likewise disgusted.
ra1n85 11y ago
Don't just bring him home, honor him. Ticker tape parades, a federal holiday, buy 1 get 1 free at Carl's Jr. - celebrate what this man did.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thoman23 11y ago
  lol...the Carl's Jr. BOGO offer would probably go a long ways toward teaching the average American who he even is.
austinhutch 11y ago
If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mhurron 11y ago
  I would expect you would be severely disappointed.
  - crxgames 11y ago
    Yep. News will be full of stories about Bruce Jenner's new tit job.
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      That's a bit disrespectful.
      - stephengillie 11y ago
        It's sad but true. Downvote for truth.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        But still accurate.
    - sixQuarks 11y ago
      The sad thing is that most people in America know more about Bruce Jenner then they do Snowden.
      - rayiner 11y ago
fsdfewjfiekf 11y ago
As long as "home" means "prison next to Robert Hanssen and everyone else who sold secrets to the Russians", then sure.
- aqme28 11y ago
  Do you have any evidence that he sold info to the Russians?
- istvan__ 11y ago
  Many of the CIA and other government agency employees sold secrets to the Russian. How about that? Or if it is for business reasons, it is ok, if it is pointing out the nature of the surveillance state we are living it is not ok.
- aikah 11y ago
  He didn't sold anything to Russia, the leaks are public throwaway shill. That's called whistle blowing and he exposed the wickedness and the corruption of your "adored" government. But Ignorance is bliss for some.
  - tomohawk 11y ago
    I'm sure a nice guy like Putin is only putting up Snowden in Russia out of the kindness of his heart.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      No, Putin is doing it because it's politically advantageous and/or he enjoys sticking it to the US. But Snowden is in Russia because the US kept him there while he was passing through (going so far as to force down the plane of the President of Bolivia on suspicion Snowden might be on board).
  - foxhedgehog 11y ago
    Was he also whistleblowing when he mysteriously appeared on Russian television asking softball questions to Putin?
task_queue 11y ago
Let's not kid ourselves, he will get the Manning treatment for the trouble he's caused.
- eli 11y ago
  Manning was a solider and subject to (harsh) military law. Snowden is a civilian and charged in a regular federal court in Virginia.
bitwarrior 11y ago
Only a presidential pardon will really suffice to come home without threat of arrest. It may very well happen posthumously, but that of course wouldn't be too useful to him by then.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting at least until 2020.
  - gojomo 11y ago
    "…won't come from the current occupant of the White House…" Are you sure? In their final days in office, lame-duck Presidents can (and do) use their pardon powers in ways that would be politically-unthinkable at any other time. A total pardon would be very hard – a potentially dangerous precedent, even, for discipline in the security agencies. But perhaps a pardon could be creatively crafted for all acts except some token offense with a smallish (2-4 year) maximum incarceration. Without an unambiguous and expansive public pardon, if I were Snowden, I'd be somewhat suspicious of other offers from the DoJ. They might find a way to nullify the offer, or find something else outside the agreement to prosecute.
    - MrZongle2 11y ago
      "Are you sure? In their final days in office, lame-duck Presidents can (and do) use their pardon powers in ways that would be politically-unthinkable at any other time." Clinton's last-day pardon of Marc Rich comes to mind...but then again, Rich was a contributor to his campaign so the pardon was just more DC back-scratching. What possible motivation would exist for the president who continued (and expanded) the Bush-era surveillance state to pardon Snowden? I see none.
  - mason240 11y ago
    Rand Paul might pardon him.
eli 11y ago
Perhaps a minority opinion, but I believe the NSA vastly overstepped and that they need to be reined in (much further than what the USA Freedom Act contains)... but also that Snowden probably should face charges. Snowden is charged with "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," which -- I think sensibly -- is illegal even if the unauthorized person is a reporter and even if you had good intentions. I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  I would agree with you as long as we also indict members of the US state security apparatus in VA and DC and around the world who authorized these programs as well. I'm not holding my breath.
  - eli 11y ago
    At the least, I think Clapper should be investigated for perjury over lying to Congress. But the fact that other criminal acts are going unpunished doesn't really have any bearing on Snowden's case. The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged.
    - themeek 11y ago
      The state doesn't think it did anything wrong. All the way up to the president - and don't think the president wasn't aware of these operations - our representatives believe that these capabilities are necessary for the current and future security of the United States (which is, in fact, facing gigantic national security challenges). The state does not want to give up these programs and it does not think that they are wrong. Some members of Congress may think otherwise and some lawyers may think so as well. But the top brass even in the DOJ are mostly on board with these programs. The most the state is willing to do is let Clapper 'retire' from service out of his official capacity and into a role where he can partner with the US government from the private sector and install a new general in his place. As for Snowden, are there not mechanisms in our court system whereby lenience is given to those in special circumstances - whistleblowing laws being one of them? I agree 100% that Snowden should face the music. But he doesn't believe he will get a fair trial in the United States and this is likely the case. So he's asking for amnesty. I think that Snowden should continue asking countries for amnesty until it is clear that the legal circumstance in the United States and the conditions and location of the court he will be charged with (Virginia? Really?) will be a fair one. Mostly this means stronger whistleblower protection laws of the sort the Obama Administration promised but never delivered.
serve_yay 11y ago
If I were him I wouldn't do it, even if some people said it would be OK. I mean he can't seriously trust the US government ever again, it would just be ridiculous.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  I agree. They would lie to get him home and if the government reneged on an agreement most Americans wouldn't really care so he would be doomed. I think political asylum in a Western European country would be his best option now. Hopefully Germany steps up and does this as I thought they were seriously considering doing so when his Russian visa was expiring but were pressure by the US not to help him.
  - krylon 11y ago
    The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well, at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek asylum there.
    - dmfdmf 11y ago
      You might be right about Germany, granting asylum would certainly impose high political cost that they may not want to bear. However, of all the other countries I'd think that Germany would be one that knows a thing or two about the dangers of the direction we are heading. Also, if they did this it might be just the message the US intelligence agencies need to realize they are out of control and check their course. I can't believe there aren't people within these agencies who are not comfortable with the direction they are going with mass surveillance. Snowden asylum would morally strengthen their opposition. Finally, I don't think Snowden is safe in Russia so I hope he gets out soon.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tosser-004 11y ago
Snowmen did two things: 1. Exposed the tools and techniques of domestic surveillance. 2. Exposed the tools and techniques of foreign surveillance. The idea of not prosecuting Snowden seems to focus on the commendable exposure of the full extent of the domestic program. I just don't see how one can ignore his exposure of the perfectly legal foreign intelligence gathering.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - fixermark 11y ago
    I don't think many people dispute whether espionage in general is a practical moral good (or at least neutrality)... In the sense that we live in a world where foreign governments keep secrets that can be dangerous to the survival of other governments. I mean, in an ideal world we wouldn't have spies... But we also wouldn't have police or military.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    And people with security clearance shouldn't get to individually determine what is right by their own moral code.
    - zethraeus 11y ago
      that seems arbitrary and at odds with the modern considerations of superior orders
      - rhino369 11y ago
        I don't see why it's arbitrary. It's not at odds with the dismissal of the Nuremburg defense because it was a violation of the international law. I do have to admit that is sort of a cop out since international law at the time was more moral than real law. Another huge distinction is that nobody was charged at Nuremburg for not exposing the crimes, they were charged with aiding them. If Snowden had a moral issue spying on people, he could quit. Also at Nuremburg, we were just punishing the losers of a war.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
adam74 11y ago
> Michael Morell, a top C.I.A. official, called it “the most serious compromise of classified information in the history of the U.S. intelligence community” Well, I'm sure if they had respected our right to privacy, Snowden would have respected theirs.
fixermark 11y ago
Oh man. That'd be great. Never, never, never going to happen. Not in this generation, anyway. Maybe in 20, 30 years.
dataker 11y ago
If Snowden came back to the U.S and got released, he wouldn't be the whistleblowing platform he currently is.
sneak 11y ago
Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers". A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou (the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him had he made an even bigger issue out of it. The people who should be supporting rigorous checks on government authority and overstep simply aren't; the system is out of control and punishes those who speak up about illegal activity. He did what any reasonable person would have done in his situation when confronted with a massive criminal conspiracy. A plea deal would allow the government to taint his actions, which were nothing short of heroic.
- loteck 11y ago
  I also am an admirer of Snowden's actions in this case, and what those actions have helped to accomplish. But when choosing how to respond on the issue of leaking classified information, I think the government has to look at more than just this case. Would every subsequent leak, inspired by this one, also be heroic? Unlikely.
- rhino369 11y ago
  >A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong. Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing that the NSA is supposed to be doing. Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc. Murky: internet meta data program that ended in 2011, prism, collection of US data on overseas cables Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees Snowden wasn't elected to make US policy and he doesn't get to dictate what US policy should be. The bulk of his secrets were directed at policies he disagreed with, not law breaking.
  - timr 11y ago
    Thank you for posting this. I haven't been able to concisely describe my feelings about Snowden before, but you've captured them well. The discussion here is so one-sided, myopic and hyperbolic that I think the reasonable people don't even bother anymore.
tyleroconnell 11y ago
It's all about perception. If President Obama is actually as opposed to the mass surveillance as he portrays publicly, he would have done something about it before there ever was a leak.
geophile 11y ago
As a practical matter, he can't come home. Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward. Put yourself in Snowden's shoes. What could anyone in the government say to you that would convince you it was safe to return to the USA?
- dabernathy89 11y ago
  I can't say this for sure, but I don't think a presidential pardon can be reversed by a subsequent president.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Presidential pardons stick because of double jeopardy. If Snowden is pardoned for the crimes for which he has been indicted, he cannot be indicted for them again. If Obama pardoned Snowden on his last day in office (as I hope he does), Snowden could come home. If murder is the concern, Snowden will not be safe anywhere. Do you think that the CIA doesn't have people in Moscow?
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    I don't think double jeopardy enters into it. You can't prosecute someone for something they've been pardoned of, even if they were never indicted before (and pardons without indictment have happened plenty of times).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The President has the Constitutional power to issue pardons, it does not grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or anyone else for that matter) power to retract them. > The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. Not to the extent that the new ones are covered within the scope of a Presidential pardon. > And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward. To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise) if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Верни им небо, тоску по дому утоли, Посеребри путь звездной пылью Верни им небо, хозяин света и любви И в знак прощения дай вновь крылья им...
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  Give them the sky, homesick quench, silver path of stardust Give them the sky, the master of light and love and as a sign of forgiveness give them wings again
foobarqux 11y ago
If Snowden isn't punished then it will effectively encourage others to harm powerful interests. So there is incentive to punish Snowden from those who decide whether he will be.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I agree. But hopefully we can provide a bigger incentive not to.
peter303 11y ago
Probably not until the Millennials are in political power. Too many of the older generation think he was naughty.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The polls I've seen that break out by age groups, IIRC, show both Millenials and Gen X believing Snowden served, rather than harmed, the public.
markdown 11y ago
> has been languishing in Vladimir Putin’s Russia for almost two years. Is this like Obama's USA? What is the purpose of calling it Putin's Russia?
- vonklaus 11y ago
  While it is a stupid distinction, and one I wouldn;t personally use, it is objectively true Putin exerts a bit more control over Russia than Obama commands in the USA.
  - foxhedgehog 11y ago
    This is an understatement. Imagine if Obama had worked for the CIA his whole life, had come to power in a nondemocratic fashion mysteriously after Bill Clinton was forced to step down, had nationalized Chevron and put the CIA in charge, imprisoned the Koch brothers, invaded Mexico twice, held a series of sham elections, stayed in power for decades, and was rumored to be one of the richest people on the planet. "The Man Without a Face" by Masha Gessen is a great read on Putin's rise to power. http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/1594486514 http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/159...
CalRobert 11y ago
Why should he want to come to the US? It has little if anything to offer him. Better to make a home in Germany or Iceland which are all more likely to respect individual privacy than the US, and are lovely places in their own right.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  It would be nice if he could see his family again, and moving one person is much cheaper than moving many.
  - CalRobert 11y ago
    Fair point. Home is a complex idea.
tzs 11y ago
There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is supposed to be doing). The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald and Binney admit this. See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly interesting are Snowden's admitted reasons for working at the NSA in the first place, before he knew of the domestic spying. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_officials_grudgingly_admit_snowden_forced/cru8s3x http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_o...
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  > The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.
  - hueving 11y ago
    Voters pretty much do have a clear view that the nsa's job is to spy on foreign countries.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      Voters should take a look into http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/ http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/
  - onewaystreet 11y ago
    And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?
    - bch 11y ago
Callmenorm 11y ago
Can we start a white house petition? Is that a thing that make a difference?
- ytdht 11y ago
  Like this one that one never answered: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... ?
  - Codephene 11y ago
    That one may be obsolete by now... Here is another: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential-pardon-edward-snowden-any-crimes-comitted https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential-...
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      I find the wording more questionable in this one. Still signed, though.
chejazi 11y ago
On the flip side, by not bringing charges against the NSA, there is a clear double standard: "...the agency had breached its own privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times a year since 2008." "Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes... that he should face."
krylon 11y ago
If I was Edward Snowden, I don't think I would return to the USA, even if the president offered me a complete pardon and a medal on top. I don't think I could trust the US intelligence apparatus to not get me into some kind of "accident" or come up with some fake charges to put me into prison. Not to mention the risk of some "patriot" taking justice into his/her own hands. Which is very sad, but unless the political landscape in the USA - and internationally - undergoes some major changes, coming back to the USA would be a stupid move for Mr. Snowden, unless he is ready to go to Jail for a long time. And given the example of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, that does not sound very inviting.
soraminazuki 11y ago
Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?
- themartorana 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Waterboarding definitely is, according to the American Convention on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_... It's article 5.2, sandwiched in-between 'you have the right not to be murdered' and 'you have the right not to be enslaved'. Article 11 is fairly wishy-washy, but it states that privacy is also considered a human right.
- vacri 11y ago
  I find it disturbing as well. There's a particular strain of political thought in the US where bad things that happen to people don't count if they're not US citizens, for some reason.
aagha 11y ago
Though others have mentioned it, the fundamental issue is that the 1917 Espionage Act [0] basically provides Snowden no options. Despite the fact that he uncovered ILLEGAL government actions, he's subject to being tried as a spy, not a whistle-blower, which I think he clearly is. 0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
cpt1138 11y ago
After Ross William Ulbricht was given two life sentences for running Silk Road, someone posted the Federal Guidelines for Life Sentences. link: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub.. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub.... One thing that struck me is that after reading this, it seemed like a mathematical tally that was entirely reasonable that he be given a life sentence given the point system. Given that the first instances in the guidelines where life sentences are handed out are treason and espionage (drug trafficking is second), isn't there a significant concern that if Snowden came back, already admitting what he did, he'd just rot in prison with a pre-tallied up score?
Friedduck 11y ago
It took me a long time to come around to the perspective that we should him as a hero and patriot rather than a traitor, but that's where I've ended up. We don't view the reporters who uncovered Watergate this way--why him?

785 points by donohoe 11y ago

Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents? Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them? Isn't this treason? Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

coldtea 11y ago
>Isn't this treason? Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason? Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. The prosecution can present their evidence.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Sometimes it cannot. Would a jury in the South in 1850 condemn or free an abolitionist? That's the problem with justice in full -- it's not just the law, and it's not just the majority opinion. The first can mostly determine compliance (with its code), the second can mostly determine popularity or prevelance of a sentiment. And they can do that only given all the facts (which they wont, e.g. how this information was used, special service people can just lie like they did to congress etc), and without undue influence from outside. For something like Snowden's case (or the slavery example), who controls the media and public discourse is quite an important factor on any jury, that's in effect even before they got selected. All that, of course, if anybody believes that there's a thing such as justice in general, and that while some things can be relative, something like slavery being bad is wrong whether the majority of people in an era thinks its ok or not.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. He's not. https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-tr... > If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant—and are therefore inadmissible in court.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> Isn't this treason? Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the US has prosecuted (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was charged under.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  The constitution says of treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution continues: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here, assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.
smileysteve 11y ago
> Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. > If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him. Nobody (not even him) questions whether he violated the laws as they were written, but the concept of whistleblowing suggests that these laws were knowingly violated to present unlawful laws and actions.

fourply 11y ago

It is infuriating to see SO many articles, even from publications that can usually be trusted, referring to this legislation as "commendable" or "significant reform". It is far from it, and we can't expect the couch-dwellers to pay attention while the dying gasps of the 4th estate trumpet this kind of non-change.

herbig 11y ago
The quote you're referring to is "The new legislation, while it is commendable as far as it goes, contains some obvious shortcomings."
- rosser 11y ago
  But the full quote would mitigate the raging hate-on the grandparent is sporting. Yes, the USA Freedom Act is limited. Yes, it doesn't change all the things we'd all like to see changed. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." It's at least movement in the right direction. Let's try celebrating that, instead of (or at least along with) bitching that it's not movement far enough.
  - fourply 11y ago
    It's unconstitutional. Of course I have a raging hate-on - I believe in the rule of law.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Phone metadata collection is Constitutional under Smith v. Maryland.
  - shit_parade2 11y ago
    And bad is brother of worse. Slogans are easy, what's hard is recognizing the difference between political theater and meaningful change. America is tumbling into the abyss of tyranny and people celebrate.

rfrey 11y ago

"As Snowden intended, the primary impact of the leaks was on political debate inside the United States." I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies. That obviously doesn't matter in the short term; but so many things don't matter in the short term.

nickbauman 11y ago
I think the militarization of our local police forces and the tacit support of interdiction, confiscation and especially their extra-judicial killing of unarmed people has done more, but it's not an argument I want to win against your assertion at all.
coldtea 11y ago
>I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies. The DESERVED complete erosion. I fixed it for you.
rhino369 11y ago
Complete erosion is a huge overstatement. In fact, we are still probably better off than we were in the dark years after the Iraq invasion.
mr337 11y ago
Unfortunately I think it is justified. Don't forget James Clapper lying to congress about not spying on US citizens. I also got a video of it, https://youtu.be/9LKzAsIMUx8 https://youtu.be/9LKzAsIMUx8 Last I heard he was selling a book, not from jail.
loopdoend 11y ago
if only Canadian leadership were likewise disgusted.

ra1n85 11y ago

Don't just bring him home, honor him. Ticker tape parades, a federal holiday, buy 1 get 1 free at Carl's Jr. - celebrate what this man did.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thoman23 11y ago
lol...the Carl's Jr. BOGO offer would probably go a long ways toward teaching the average American who he even is.

austinhutch 11y ago

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mhurron 11y ago
I would expect you would be severely disappointed.
- crxgames 11y ago
  Yep. News will be full of stories about Bruce Jenner's new tit job.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    That's a bit disrespectful.
    - stephengillie 11y ago
      It's sad but true. Downvote for truth.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      But still accurate.
  - sixQuarks 11y ago
    The sad thing is that most people in America know more about Bruce Jenner then they do Snowden.
    - rayiner 11y ago

fsdfewjfiekf 11y ago

As long as "home" means "prison next to Robert Hanssen and everyone else who sold secrets to the Russians", then sure.

aqme28 11y ago
Do you have any evidence that he sold info to the Russians?
istvan__ 11y ago
Many of the CIA and other government agency employees sold secrets to the Russian. How about that? Or if it is for business reasons, it is ok, if it is pointing out the nature of the surveillance state we are living it is not ok.
aikah 11y ago
He didn't sold anything to Russia, the leaks are public throwaway shill. That's called whistle blowing and he exposed the wickedness and the corruption of your "adored" government. But Ignorance is bliss for some.
- tomohawk 11y ago
  I'm sure a nice guy like Putin is only putting up Snowden in Russia out of the kindness of his heart.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    No, Putin is doing it because it's politically advantageous and/or he enjoys sticking it to the US. But Snowden is in Russia because the US kept him there while he was passing through (going so far as to force down the plane of the President of Bolivia on suspicion Snowden might be on board).
- foxhedgehog 11y ago
  Was he also whistleblowing when he mysteriously appeared on Russian television asking softball questions to Putin?

task_queue 11y ago

Let's not kid ourselves, he will get the Manning treatment for the trouble he's caused.

eli 11y ago
Manning was a solider and subject to (harsh) military law. Snowden is a civilian and charged in a regular federal court in Virginia.

bitwarrior 11y ago

Only a presidential pardon will really suffice to come home without threat of arrest. It may very well happen posthumously, but that of course wouldn't be too useful to him by then.

MrZongle2 11y ago
A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting at least until 2020.
- gojomo 11y ago
  "…won't come from the current occupant of the White House…" Are you sure? In their final days in office, lame-duck Presidents can (and do) use their pardon powers in ways that would be politically-unthinkable at any other time. A total pardon would be very hard – a potentially dangerous precedent, even, for discipline in the security agencies. But perhaps a pardon could be creatively crafted for all acts except some token offense with a smallish (2-4 year) maximum incarceration. Without an unambiguous and expansive public pardon, if I were Snowden, I'd be somewhat suspicious of other offers from the DoJ. They might find a way to nullify the offer, or find something else outside the agreement to prosecute.
  - MrZongle2 11y ago
    "Are you sure? In their final days in office, lame-duck Presidents can (and do) use their pardon powers in ways that would be politically-unthinkable at any other time." Clinton's last-day pardon of Marc Rich comes to mind...but then again, Rich was a contributor to his campaign so the pardon was just more DC back-scratching. What possible motivation would exist for the president who continued (and expanded) the Bush-era surveillance state to pardon Snowden? I see none.
- mason240 11y ago
  Rand Paul might pardon him.

eli 11y ago

Perhaps a minority opinion, but I believe the NSA vastly overstepped and that they need to be reined in (much further than what the USA Freedom Act contains)... but also that Snowden probably should face charges. Snowden is charged with "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," which -- I think sensibly -- is illegal even if the unauthorized person is a reporter and even if you had good intentions. I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument.

nickbauman 11y ago
I would agree with you as long as we also indict members of the US state security apparatus in VA and DC and around the world who authorized these programs as well. I'm not holding my breath.
- eli 11y ago
  At the least, I think Clapper should be investigated for perjury over lying to Congress. But the fact that other criminal acts are going unpunished doesn't really have any bearing on Snowden's case. The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged.
  - themeek 11y ago
    The state doesn't think it did anything wrong. All the way up to the president - and don't think the president wasn't aware of these operations - our representatives believe that these capabilities are necessary for the current and future security of the United States (which is, in fact, facing gigantic national security challenges). The state does not want to give up these programs and it does not think that they are wrong. Some members of Congress may think otherwise and some lawyers may think so as well. But the top brass even in the DOJ are mostly on board with these programs. The most the state is willing to do is let Clapper 'retire' from service out of his official capacity and into a role where he can partner with the US government from the private sector and install a new general in his place. As for Snowden, are there not mechanisms in our court system whereby lenience is given to those in special circumstances - whistleblowing laws being one of them? I agree 100% that Snowden should face the music. But he doesn't believe he will get a fair trial in the United States and this is likely the case. So he's asking for amnesty. I think that Snowden should continue asking countries for amnesty until it is clear that the legal circumstance in the United States and the conditions and location of the court he will be charged with (Virginia? Really?) will be a fair one. Mostly this means stronger whistleblower protection laws of the sort the Obama Administration promised but never delivered.

serve_yay 11y ago

If I were him I wouldn't do it, even if some people said it would be OK. I mean he can't seriously trust the US government ever again, it would just be ridiculous.

dmfdmf 11y ago
I agree. They would lie to get him home and if the government reneged on an agreement most Americans wouldn't really care so he would be doomed. I think political asylum in a Western European country would be his best option now. Hopefully Germany steps up and does this as I thought they were seriously considering doing so when his Russian visa was expiring but were pressure by the US not to help him.
- krylon 11y ago
  The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well, at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek asylum there.
  - dmfdmf 11y ago
    You might be right about Germany, granting asylum would certainly impose high political cost that they may not want to bear. However, of all the other countries I'd think that Germany would be one that knows a thing or two about the dangers of the direction we are heading. Also, if they did this it might be just the message the US intelligence agencies need to realize they are out of control and check their course. I can't believe there aren't people within these agencies who are not comfortable with the direction they are going with mass surveillance. Snowden asylum would morally strengthen their opposition. Finally, I don't think Snowden is safe in Russia so I hope he gets out soon.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tosser-004 11y ago

Snowmen did two things: 1. Exposed the tools and techniques of domestic surveillance. 2. Exposed the tools and techniques of foreign surveillance. The idea of not prosecuting Snowden seems to focus on the commendable exposure of the full extent of the domestic program. I just don't see how one can ignore his exposure of the perfectly legal foreign intelligence gathering.

marssaxman 11y ago
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fixermark 11y ago
  I don't think many people dispute whether espionage in general is a practical moral good (or at least neutrality)... In the sense that we live in a world where foreign governments keep secrets that can be dangerous to the survival of other governments. I mean, in an ideal world we wouldn't have spies... But we also wouldn't have police or military.
- rhino369 11y ago
  And people with security clearance shouldn't get to individually determine what is right by their own moral code.
  - zethraeus 11y ago
    that seems arbitrary and at odds with the modern considerations of superior orders
    - rhino369 11y ago
      I don't see why it's arbitrary. It's not at odds with the dismissal of the Nuremburg defense because it was a violation of the international law. I do have to admit that is sort of a cop out since international law at the time was more moral than real law. Another huge distinction is that nobody was charged at Nuremburg for not exposing the crimes, they were charged with aiding them. If Snowden had a moral issue spying on people, he could quit. Also at Nuremburg, we were just punishing the losers of a war.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

adam74 11y ago

> Michael Morell, a top C.I.A. official, called it “the most serious compromise of classified information in the history of the U.S. intelligence community” Well, I'm sure if they had respected our right to privacy, Snowden would have respected theirs.

fixermark 11y ago

Oh man. That'd be great. Never, never, never going to happen. Not in this generation, anyway. Maybe in 20, 30 years.

dataker 11y ago

If Snowden came back to the U.S and got released, he wouldn't be the whistleblowing platform he currently is.

sneak 11y ago

Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers". A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou (the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him had he made an even bigger issue out of it. The people who should be supporting rigorous checks on government authority and overstep simply aren't; the system is out of control and punishes those who speak up about illegal activity. He did what any reasonable person would have done in his situation when confronted with a massive criminal conspiracy. A plea deal would allow the government to taint his actions, which were nothing short of heroic.

loteck 11y ago
I also am an admirer of Snowden's actions in this case, and what those actions have helped to accomplish. But when choosing how to respond on the issue of leaking classified information, I think the government has to look at more than just this case. Would every subsequent leak, inspired by this one, also be heroic? Unlikely.
rhino369 11y ago
>A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong. Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing that the NSA is supposed to be doing. Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc. Murky: internet meta data program that ended in 2011, prism, collection of US data on overseas cables Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees Snowden wasn't elected to make US policy and he doesn't get to dictate what US policy should be. The bulk of his secrets were directed at policies he disagreed with, not law breaking.
- timr 11y ago
  Thank you for posting this. I haven't been able to concisely describe my feelings about Snowden before, but you've captured them well. The discussion here is so one-sided, myopic and hyperbolic that I think the reasonable people don't even bother anymore.

tyleroconnell 11y ago

It's all about perception. If President Obama is actually as opposed to the mass surveillance as he portrays publicly, he would have done something about it before there ever was a leak.

geophile 11y ago

As a practical matter, he can't come home. Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward. Put yourself in Snowden's shoes. What could anyone in the government say to you that would convince you it was safe to return to the USA?

dabernathy89 11y ago
I can't say this for sure, but I don't think a presidential pardon can be reversed by a subsequent president.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Presidential pardons stick because of double jeopardy. If Snowden is pardoned for the crimes for which he has been indicted, he cannot be indicted for them again. If Obama pardoned Snowden on his last day in office (as I hope he does), Snowden could come home. If murder is the concern, Snowden will not be safe anywhere. Do you think that the CIA doesn't have people in Moscow?
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I don't think double jeopardy enters into it. You can't prosecute someone for something they've been pardoned of, even if they were never indicted before (and pardons without indictment have happened plenty of times).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The President has the Constitutional power to issue pardons, it does not grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or anyone else for that matter) power to retract them. > The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. Not to the extent that the new ones are covered within the scope of a Presidential pardon. > And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward. To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise) if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Верни им небо, тоску по дому утоли, Посеребри путь звездной пылью Верни им небо, хозяин света и любви И в знак прощения дай вновь крылья им...

dmfdmf 11y ago
Give them the sky, homesick quench, silver path of stardust Give them the sky, the master of light and love and as a sign of forgiveness give them wings again

foobarqux 11y ago

If Snowden isn't punished then it will effectively encourage others to harm powerful interests. So there is incentive to punish Snowden from those who decide whether he will be.

dllthomas 11y ago
I agree. But hopefully we can provide a bigger incentive not to.

peter303 11y ago

Probably not until the Millennials are in political power. Too many of the older generation think he was naughty.

dragonwriter 11y ago
The polls I've seen that break out by age groups, IIRC, show both Millenials and Gen X believing Snowden served, rather than harmed, the public.

markdown 11y ago

> has been languishing in Vladimir Putin’s Russia for almost two years. Is this like Obama's USA? What is the purpose of calling it Putin's Russia?

vonklaus 11y ago
While it is a stupid distinction, and one I wouldn;t personally use, it is objectively true Putin exerts a bit more control over Russia than Obama commands in the USA.
- foxhedgehog 11y ago
  This is an understatement. Imagine if Obama had worked for the CIA his whole life, had come to power in a nondemocratic fashion mysteriously after Bill Clinton was forced to step down, had nationalized Chevron and put the CIA in charge, imprisoned the Koch brothers, invaded Mexico twice, held a series of sham elections, stayed in power for decades, and was rumored to be one of the richest people on the planet. "The Man Without a Face" by Masha Gessen is a great read on Putin's rise to power. http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/1594486514 http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/159...

CalRobert 11y ago

Why should he want to come to the US? It has little if anything to offer him. Better to make a home in Germany or Iceland which are all more likely to respect individual privacy than the US, and are lovely places in their own right.

dllthomas 11y ago
It would be nice if he could see his family again, and moving one person is much cheaper than moving many.
- CalRobert 11y ago
  Fair point. Home is a complex idea.

tzs 11y ago

There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is supposed to be doing). The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald and Binney admit this. See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly interesting are Snowden's admitted reasons for working at the NSA in the first place, before he knew of the domestic spying. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_officials_grudgingly_admit_snowden_forced/cru8s3x http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_o...

yodsanklai 11y ago
> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.
- hueving 11y ago
  Voters pretty much do have a clear view that the nsa's job is to spy on foreign countries.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    Voters should take a look into http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/ http://m.nsa.gov/about/mission/
- onewaystreet 11y ago
  And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?
  - bch 11y ago

Callmenorm 11y ago

Can we start a white house petition? Is that a thing that make a difference?

ytdht 11y ago
Like this one that one never answered: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... ?
- Codephene 11y ago
  That one may be obsolete by now... Here is another: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential-pardon-edward-snowden-any-crimes-comitted https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential-...
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    I find the wording more questionable in this one. Still signed, though.

chejazi 11y ago

On the flip side, by not bringing charges against the NSA, there is a clear double standard: "...the agency had breached its own privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times a year since 2008." "Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes... that he should face."

krylon 11y ago

If I was Edward Snowden, I don't think I would return to the USA, even if the president offered me a complete pardon and a medal on top. I don't think I could trust the US intelligence apparatus to not get me into some kind of "accident" or come up with some fake charges to put me into prison. Not to mention the risk of some "patriot" taking justice into his/her own hands. Which is very sad, but unless the political landscape in the USA - and internationally - undergoes some major changes, coming back to the USA would be a stupid move for Mr. Snowden, unless he is ready to go to Jail for a long time. And given the example of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, that does not sound very inviting.

soraminazuki 11y ago

Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?

themartorana 11y ago
I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.
- vacri 11y ago
  Waterboarding definitely is, according to the American Convention on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_... It's article 5.2, sandwiched in-between 'you have the right not to be murdered' and 'you have the right not to be enslaved'. Article 11 is fairly wishy-washy, but it states that privacy is also considered a human right.
vacri 11y ago
I find it disturbing as well. There's a particular strain of political thought in the US where bad things that happen to people don't count if they're not US citizens, for some reason.

aagha 11y ago

Though others have mentioned it, the fundamental issue is that the 1917 Espionage Act [0] basically provides Snowden no options. Despite the fact that he uncovered ILLEGAL government actions, he's subject to being tried as a spy, not a whistle-blower, which I think he clearly is. 0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

cpt1138 11y ago

After Ross William Ulbricht was given two life sentences for running Silk Road, someone posted the Federal Guidelines for Life Sentences. link: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub.. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub.... One thing that struck me is that after reading this, it seemed like a mathematical tally that was entirely reasonable that he be given a life sentence given the point system. Given that the first instances in the guidelines where life sentences are handed out are treason and espionage (drug trafficking is second), isn't there a significant concern that if Snowden came back, already admitting what he did, he'd just rot in prison with a pre-tallied up score?

Friedduck 11y ago

It took me a long time to come around to the perspective that we should him as a hero and patriot rather than a traitor, but that's where I've ended up. We don't view the reporters who uncovered Watergate this way--why him?