16 ms·

A Response to Your Petition on Edward Snowden

189 points by uptown 11y ago

jscheel 11y ago
Really, I don't know that anyone expected anything different from the current administration.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Would any administration act differently? Would any institution? Think of any institution you've been part of: * Part of the President's role is to lead and manage the Executive Branch. He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option. * Like any manager, the President also is an advocate for and loyal to his subordinates. The President is only one person; the priorities of the nation depend on his effectiveness as a manager and therefore on the loyalty and support of all those in the Exectuive Branch. * Notice that my first point referred breaches of "authority", not of law or rules. In every institution, the priority is not the rules or laws, but loyalty. That might not be good, but it's true. Egregiously break the law but be loyal to the institution and authority (e.g., torture, various corruption scandals), and you'll be protected. Be disloyal, and you'll never work in the city again and will be prosecuted if possible. Unfortunately this is true in almost every institution, in my observations and experience (and this is hardly a novel or controversial statement). I'd be fascinated in research on this issue and its solutions, if anyone here knows about it.
  - jscheel 11y ago
    "Current administration" may have been the wrong phrase. I meant, whatever administration would be currently in office. It's easier for candidates to say something to the contrary, this was the only response I would have expected from any current administration.
  - angrybits 11y ago
    Administrations often change their tunes to maintain a populist backing. They could have just said plainly, "Look, he did the crime and we are required by the rule of law to bring him to trial." and left it at that. But they didn't. They subtilely drilled home the "he's a traitor and a coward" ideas, and I am honestly not sure why. They have nothing substantial to gain by it, other than maybe to discourage future acts of subversion. Apparently, whatever the aim, they're willing to use the language of tyrants to achieve it.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      They are not required by the rule of law to bring him to trial. The law grants the President the option to pardon, and that is precisely what was being explicitly asked for in this petition.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option." He can, and he should have, not that I expected it. He doesn't have to (and shouldn't) establish that all breaches of authority are an option. But the most credible signal the President could send that the US government is not authoritarian and evil is to pardon those who, in good conscience and motivated by concerns about whether secret actions are authoritarian and evil, raise those concerns to the public awareness. If we're going to have secret programs carried out while blatantly lying to the American people about what is and is not done, and about what is and is not allowed, then we lose a good deal of democratic control over what is done in our name. Such programs may be necessary, but if they are then ensuring that at least those working on them believe them to be a good idea helps re-establish some check on the likely distance between what we want and what happens behind the scenes.
mtmail 11y ago
from June 2013
- timtadh 11y ago
  The response was made today.
  - bcg1 11y ago
    They mean the petition was started in June 2013.
- shaunrussell 11y ago
  This is today's official response by the white house.
uniformlyrandom 11y ago
> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Not sure what I was expecting.
- Raphmedia 11y ago
  I am not from the USA and have little knowledge of such legal processes. Would he really be judged by his a jury of his peers? I was under the impression that he would forever be put to jail for treason the minute he stepped on American soil.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    I am from the USA, and have little knowledge of such legal processes. That's the way they like it.
  - juliangregorian 11y ago
    It would probably be pretty similar to what happened to Chelsea Manning. Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. However they would love to make an example of Snowden.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      > Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. Weev got the same treatment.
  - kenj0418 11y ago
    He would almost certainly be put in jail as soon as he stepped foot on American Soil. In most circumstances someone could make bail awaiting trial, but considering that he'd been hiding in another country (and the government would argue that he might run off again) it would be very doubtful for him. But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it). The term 'jury of his peers' means regular American citizens (not judges or other government officials). Sadly, the government has done a good job of convincing many people that all their spying on us is for our own safety. They'd just need to work to get 12 people that believed that (while Snowden's attorney's would work to get at least one that didn't). Though anyone that already (openly) had an opinion on his guilt or innocence wouldn't be allowed on the jury. (note: this is assuming a civilian trial. I think they'd have a very hard time trying to give Snowden some sort of military tribunal)
anEasternGoat 11y ago
Big surprise, right?
derwiki 11y ago
I would have preferred no response to "thanks for writing in, here's why you're wrong."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
electricblue 11y ago
Even if Obama believes this nonsense, he should still pardon him, if only to take a bit of wind out of Russia's sails. Snowden's impact on the US has been entirely 100% positive and he represents no threat whatsoever to national security. I find it a lot more conscionable than pardoning some well connected extortionist or whoever they usually pardon at the end of their term.
kang 11y ago
Typical government fear mongering. The government has done a good job of convincing the common public that this is all being done for their safety though the fact it not a single terrorist has ever been caught by this. This response, albeit a small one, repeatedly reminds people that "we live in a dangerous world". I would be criticised for being really extreme, but I would go ahead and say that on a subconscious level, the govt has instilled more fear in people than the terrorists.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  I would say that the government is more of a threat than terrorists.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 11y ago
"Published Date: Jun 09, 2013" (Note: It had the minimum response signatures within a very short time period, too) Thanks for writing something 2+ years ago, here's some talking points based on our current administration objectives.
- greenNote 11y ago
  True, when I got the email this morning as a response, I had forgotten that I signed the petition. For a few moments I thought something good was going to be published.
bakhy 11y ago
yes, face the consequences, like Chelsea Manning faced them, locked up for years before trial, large amounts of time in solitary confinement. of course, whether the whistle blower actually turns him or herself over to such torture has absolutely no bearing on the constructiveness of the debate itself. that argument is merely a fascist ad hominem. something i could easily imagine Putin using, for example. it's obvious exactly what kind of "constructive debate" on surveillance the US government wants - none.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
I have doubts whether Edward Snowden would get a fair open trial, with a jury of his peers. Serious doubts. The entire Snowden affair reminds me very much of Daniel Ellsberg. At the time Ellsberg was condemed by many (especially in the military industrial complex) as a traitor but now I think that just about everyone believes that Ellsberg did a good thing for our country and society. I think that history will look kindly at Snowden - Lisa Monaco and President Obama will be on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue. I personally believe that we can have an effective intelligence force that acts in accordance with international law and protects our rights of privacy and due process of law. The overreach by those running our intelligence operations smells like a power grab that is not in the best interests of American citizens.
- justin66 11y ago
  > I have doubts whether Edward Snowden would get a fair open trial, with a jury of his peers. There's not really a lot of doubt. A trial under the Espionage Act is not a fair, open trial.
- mbrock 11y ago
  When John Kerry called Snowden a coward and a traitor, Ellsberg wrote an article for the Guardian, "Snowden would not get a fair trial - and Kerry is wrong" [1], concluding: "John Kerry's challenge to Snowden to return and face trial is either disingenuous or simply ignorant that current prosecutions under the Espionage Act allow no distinction whatever between a patriotic whistleblower and a spy. Either way, nothing excuses Kerry's slanderous and despicable characterizations of a young man who, in my opinion, has done more than anyone in or out of government in this century to demonstrate his patriotism, moral courage and loyalty to the oath of office the three of us swore: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-...
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Yeah. Its sad how the political class resorts to disingenuous lies whenever they feel challenged.
JosephBrown 11y ago
"Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest" How do you do this when secret courts can keep you silenced?
- econner 11y ago
  Agreed. And, of course the NSA only uses "lawful tools." Nope, never are they found unconstitutional.
- knodi123 11y ago
  Especially considering that the NSA has proven itself willing to tell bold-faced lies directly to congress? I mean, how do you whistleblow about that kind of thing without stealing classified information and releasing it publicly? This whitehouse response is a cruel joke.
- caskance 11y ago
  The same way William Binney did. He did things responsibly through the proper channels. The public didn't give a shit. The government wishes Snowden would have followed his example.
johanneskanybal 11y ago
Just a scorpion being a scorpion.
dudul 11y ago
When is the NSA gonna face the consequences of its actions? All these people who lied under oath in front of congress and the American people, when are they gonna face the consequences of their actions?
- caskance 11y ago
  Whenever someone makes them. What do you expect? That they will walk down to the local police office and turn themselves in?
vinhboy 11y ago
> Instead of constructively addressing these issues LOL. Tell me the last time our Congress have constructively addressed anything...
- lettergram 11y ago
  Actually, there was a group of whistle blowers prior to snowden who went to congress. The congresswomen who was working with them had her door broken down and was arrested for a brief time for holding confidential documents. It was actually all in thr PBS/NYTimes story United States of secrets. Probably the best documentary on thid whole thing i have seen.
swalsh 11y ago
This is an infuriating response. They never own up to their own wrong doing, make very strong accusations.... which, I suppose we're suppose to take as truth because they're the authority? Then they call for him to come back, and act like a fair trial is even possible. I don't think there's anything Obama can do short of a complete pardon to fix this. If we want a real resolution, I think we'll need wait until after 2016.
titzer 11y ago
The pervasive surveillance activities of the government are one thing; one could kind of expect it in the absence of law or a constitution. But it's not just that. The deliberate activities to undermine, weaken, and even ban encryption and the very foundations for secure communications is just plain dirty. It's clear that the thrust of these programs was never the best interest of the public, but furtherance of espionage and surveillance. But what is absolutely beyond the pale is the the deliberate construction of a wall secrecy with full cooperation of secret courts hidden behind a wall of lies with minimal oversight. This is not the functioning of a government that is trying to balance the rights of its citizens against security. It's a blatant attempt to construct an inner institution alien to democracy and alien to every single principle the United States was founded upon. The endless prosecution of whistleblowers is one more thing. It's shown the government as a cabal who will use every weapon in its arsenal to fight those who would do anything to expose how corrupt and self-serving it's become. Don't tell us to trust you. Why should we? We have no mechanisms to control or even influence this behemoth anymore. Do they really think that Snowden would have made even a dent holding a sign in front the of White House or appearing on a news program? Seriously? Do they really think he would have _ever_ faced a trial by a jury of his peers?
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  The Obama Administration has aggressively muzzled and prosecuted whistleblowers, possibly more than any previous president. It's remarkable that he would invite people to blow the whistle, given that sorry record.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    It's not just possibly more than any previous president. Public records show that he has sentenced whistleblowers to 25 times the jail time of all previous Presidents combined. He has also used the Espionage Act more than all previous Presidents combined.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Public records show that he has sentenced whistleblowers to 25 times the jail time of all previous Presidents combined. I strongly doubt that public records show that people sentenced were whistleblowers, or that the President sentenced them.
SCAQTony 11y ago
One thing is certain about the petition process, It has proven to be ineffectual and a complete farce unless it is about "Star Wars day" or "pardoning" a turkey in November.
- plonh 11y ago
  The petition process has one purpose, to provide an outlet for short attention span outrage, in a forum that poses 0 threat to the White House.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The petition process has one purpose, to provide an outlet for short attention span outrage, in a forum that poses 0 threat to the White House. Writing to the White House directly already provided such an outlet; what the newer formalized petition process does is two things: 1) It provides an incentive to aggregating related requests, providing an economy in reviewing and responding, and 2) Provides visibility to the requests and responses, which frequently serve as a focal point for organizing by the groups interested in the subject matter of the request. (#2, if anything, increases the potential political cost compared to the status quo ante to the White House, both from responses and absences of responses.)
phaus 11y ago
Sadly, it looks like more thought went into the response for the petition about building a death star. As far as the claim of "Hiding behind an authoritarian regime." I'm sure he would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it looks like they are all run by cowards. There seems to be a false idea in our country that civil disobedience demands martyrdom.
- caskance 11y ago
  >I'm sure he would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it looks like they are all run by cowards. Not a coincidence.
vessenes 11y ago
Interesting messaging about Russia; that's probably the most interesting thing about the whole note to me. Russia = authoritarian regime. I wonder when the US state department started approving messaging like that about Russia.
- Zikes 11y ago
  It's funny, I never really looked up the definition for Authoritarianism before. It's actually quite interesting. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 1. limited, not responsible, political pluralism 2. a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency 3. neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of anti-regime activity) 4. "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague
- maxerickson 11y ago
  There are a whole bunch of recent US geopolitical actions that are interesting to look at through the lens of lessening Russian influence. When US national policy is pretty much to undermine the Russian economy I'm not sure how worried the White House should be about how a particular statement gets parsed.
  - vessenes 11y ago
    Well, I would term it more that policy is curbing re-emergence of a soviet-like political power. But, it's one thing to go quietly pursue cold-war style influence mongering. It's another to take that mongering out into the 'real world' of press releases words..
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Yeah, that's what people say, I just don't really get it. Kneecapping their economy is a lot more aggressive than any level of bluster or bravado, and has not been all that secretive in implementation (i.e., overt sanctions on economic sectors and particular individuals).
e28eta 11y ago
I'm disappointed in the response's content, and the huge delay - they could have written the same thing two years ago, it doesn't sound like their position has changed at all. I was surprised to see they've answered every outstanding petition today: http://twitter.com/wethepeople http://twitter.com/wethepeople
shaunrussell 11y ago
What a cop out.
Mithaldu 11y ago
As a non-american it's kind of hilarious to have the american government, with all its powers, assets and resources figuratively yell at a single individual: "Come out and fight like a man!" The fact that someone thought this kind of response is appropiate in any way means one of two things: 1. They think the american populace is irrelevant and they can flip them the bird unscathed. 2. They think they have substantial support by morons making up a majority of their populace who applaud that kind of response.
- jgrowl 11y ago
  Considering they were responding directly to people that signed the petition to have Snowden pardoned, I don't know how their intended reaction could be anything other than frustration and rage. It's like David and Goliath. Except where Goliath is the largest, most powerful military in the world with nukes and fighter jets. David is just a pale nerdy guy with a keyboard.
  - zaphar 11y ago
    Didn't you know? These days the pale nerdy guy with a keyboard is almost more of a threat than a nation state with nukes. This whole internet and technology thing somehow got bigger than all of them when they weren't looking. All you have to do is look at the continued requests for a "golden" key, the constant attempts to get rid of net neutrality, the frequent attacks on various nations electronic infrastructure. Those guys with keyboards are scary as all get out to most of the governments out there.
- meragrin 11y ago
  The petition is specifically about pardoning Snowden. The President cannot pardon someone for a federal crime they have not been convicted of. Snowden literally needs to come back, face the trials, and be convicted before the President could consider to pardon him. To me, the response is a have your cake and eat it too kind of response. They hint at the technicality of not being able to issue a pardon in a way they sound tough on people like Snowden. Rather than "come out and fight like a man", it is "security, security, security, Snowden hasn't been convicted yet, security, security, security".
ionised 11y ago
This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read. > Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe. Yes of course he has. > Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. Has it? Has it really? Where's the proof of this? > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. He tried the official route a number of times and was readily ignored, remember? Given that the NSA's actions were deemed unlawful, his actions were in the public interest and he deserves protections as a whistleblower. However the people aren't fucking stupid. We know all he will face if he returns home is life in prison. At best. > We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. Hmm yes. All those civil libereties groups, charities, foreign businesses and allied politicians you spied on sure are dangerous. Got to keep them in check lest they attack America with their ball-point pens! My translation of this entire response; "We have heard your voices and grievances and honestly couldn't give two shits about what you think. You have no power here."
- teekert 11y ago
  > Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. As you say, where is the prove and also: He did not disclose the documents, respected journalistic institutions did. He did not just leak anything and everything. He did the right thing. This response is an insult to everybody who signed the petition.
  - 11y ago
austerity 11y ago
Why do people who use the "face the consequences of his actions" argument consider it so self-evident? Accepting an unjust punishment for your good deeds isn't somehow more noble than escaping it. And not just an unjust punishment but an unjust punishment in the hands of the very institution whose corruption you exposed. Government lecturing us on proper civil disobedience is ironic to put it very mildly.
- Zikes 11y ago
  It's basically saying martyrdom is the one true path to change. According to this statement, if we want justice, "blood" must be spilled.
  - jgrowl 11y ago
    It's like Jefferson said... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This isn't a one way street.
- caskance 11y ago
  If the law is unjust, changing the law fixes things for everyone. Running from the law tarnishes your own reputation while not fixing anything.
jgrowl 11y ago
> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. Secret courts, gag orders, free speech zones... How exactly does one speak out? > He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. A jury of his peers? You really want me to believe you wouldn't boot any of his actual peers out of jury selection? Implying Snowden is "hiding" when he's given up his family, home, and a nice paycheck is the most disgusting, cowardly thing to say. What a joke our government has become.
borrowedhour 11y ago
Reading the response it seems that they are planning to charge Snowden as they would charge Assange, eventhough Snowden released documents through responsible journalists..
angrybits 11y ago
The story this tells is so stark, I don't know what else there is left to say on it. They guy sealed his own fate when he made himself an enemy of the state, and I fear he will never get to set foot on his homeland again. One day, I hope he will be nationally recognized for his service to his people. In the meantime, the drastic divide between the aims of the government and the aims of the governed makes me grow ever more worried that we have dark days ahead of us.
- Zikes 11y ago
  He will be on the run for the rest of his life, until he's caught or assassinated. If it's the former, we have a responsibility as citizens to have affected enough of a change in our government to see to it that he is given a truly fair trial. If it's the latter, we'll probably never hear of it, or know the truth of it.
xwkd 11y ago
The response is the same as we've heard before: If you're going to engage in an act of civil disobedience, you're throwing yourself at the mercy of the justice system. When in recent years so many programmers have had examples made of them, I can't say I have much confidence in the fair treatment of a previously relatively inconsequential man who made a monumental decision on one of the defining ethical dilemmas of our time. There's a gauntlet of institutional embarrassment that he'd have to run through. I can't blame the guy for staying in Russia.
dataker 11y ago
>not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime Is the White House this much hostile towards Russia? Besides from Iran or North Korea, I'd never expect diplomats to be as straightforward as in this statement.
- plonh 11y ago
  Hey, after last week, Iran is not evil anymore. In fact, Iram has never been evil now.
MrZongle2 11y ago
Wow. A few dozen more unsurprising responses to high-profile petitions like this, and people might start suspecting that the White House petition site is really just a PR stunt by the current administration and not some kind of revolutionary, hopey-changey Government 2.0 effort.
smpetrey 11y ago
In other words: nahhhh
agd 11y ago
> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers Why would Snowden come back when he can't make a public interest defence [1]? The trial would be a formality and he'd be locked up for 40 years without being able to contribute to any debate. [1] The espionage act does not allow you to make a public interest defence and makes no distinction between whistle-blowers and spies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
- caskance 11y ago
  Because that would be a useful first step in getting that stupid law overturned. Unless you think it's more likely Congress will do it themselves?
sunstone 11y ago
The Snowden/spying fiasco is the biggest, ugliest black mark on Obama's legacy as President. He knew and he kept quiet and, as a former Professor of Constitutional law at Harvard he has absolutely no excuse. Not withstanding this late, clueless response to the petition, Obama's only real way of not going down in history as the "Peeping Tom President" is to pardon Snowden before he leaves office.
- srj 11y ago
  Interestingly I thought a pardon could only be granted after conviction but this 1988 NYTimes op-ed shows that it can be done: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
plonh 11y ago
This will continue as long as people keep alternating voting for "American Empire" Republicans and "slightly fewer wars of opportunity" Democrats. There is a point where Third Party Candidate FUD is less scary the Two Party certainty. I have reached that point.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
They also (non)responded to this one: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-government-get-warrant https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-g...
RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
I think Snowden is a traitor. Not for releasing the information, but for going to Hong Kong (China), and then to Russia. Snowden had access to a lot more information than was released. I do not honestly think Russia would have let him stay without requiring something from him. Taking classified/secret information to a hostile country is treason. If he had done what Ellsburg did and stayed in the United States and face a jury, I think a strong case could be made for pardoning him or for jury nullification. However, by going to China and Russia (which are actually probably more involved in monitoring and controlling Internet use by their subjects) he committed treason, and I hope he eventually gets handed back to the United States to serve a very long prison sentence.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I think you're skipping the part where he gave the information to respected Western journalistic organizations and didn't actually have it on his person when he went overseas. Because frankly, that would be an incomprehensibly stupid move on his part.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
    According to Wikipedia "he gave all the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong" Therefor, he must have had access to the documents after he left the USA since it seems he gave them to journalists while he was in Hong Kong.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Many people would say that leaking top secret information to the entire world and fleeing your home in Hawaii to live in exile in Russia would be an incomprehensibly stupid move. Yet he did that.
- jahewson 11y ago
  Last time I checked, China and Russia weren't "enemies" of the US, which is a necessary prerequisite to a treason charge. So, no, he didn't commit treason. He certainly broke laws protecting secrets - but the NSA was arguably abusing those very laws to hide their illegal activities - so who's in the wrong?
fixxer 11y ago
So, Snowden uncovered the government's willingness to violate civil liberties, yet should have still expected his civil liberties to not be violated if he blew the whistle? Ugh. Bunch of assholes we got running this place.
scrupulusalbion 11y ago
> Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. So this is what passes for responsibility according to the President's advisors? It might be appropriate to bring this up the next time Obama undermines some reportedly-bad Republican-made policy and the Repbulicans turn around and demand that Obama step down as president. According to Lisa Monaco, it would be irresponsible for Obama to run away from the consequences of his actions by not stepping down in that situation.
dean 11y ago
> The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate Oh the irony. deserves robust debate. Ha. It would all still be a secret if not for Snowden.
staltz 11y ago
Overall the response is appealing to the "fear" message: "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks" The fear message is the primary tool authoritarian regimes use to control its population. And this: > Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences ... "Steal" makes no sense as a description of what Snowden did. He didn't delete digital information, he just copied it. Everything that Snowden has is still with NSA. It seems this official response was written to appeal to non-technical people who are easily convinced by well-crafted government speech.
pizu 11y ago
"Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security.." Errr, really? What exactly are those consequences? Not a single person was hurt or injured as a result of the revelations. On the other hand, American people have learned a lot about their Government spying on their own citizens.
- Zikes 11y ago
  Those consequences are "classified."
Retric 11y ago
An interesting take, what about the thousands of people working with or at the NSA who broke the law and probably committed treason? Should they also face a firing squad as the penalty for treason?
yock 11y ago
We live in a dangerous world. And there it is. Their power and influence is dependent on the majority believing they are in danger. Gotta remind people of that notion every chance they get. Whether it's true or not shouldn't even be relevant to the law, but fear is a powerful motivator.
heavymark 11y ago
Surprised they responded at all since it was such a poor response. Ultimately they are saying he should have gone through legally channels even though of course doing 0 would have yielded 0 results, because he would have no proof. If he disclosed any confidential information he would have been arrested. So there are no legal channels he could have taken. Coming back or turning himself in won't do anything except allow the US to silence him, send him to jail where he will mysteriously be killed or such. Like all the men and woman before him who fought authority or the church he would ended up being written in the histories some day as a hero. But will be a long time before there is another time distance for the government to be able to admit that.
john_b 11y ago
It's really interesting to me how most people can easily spot propaganda in other cultures and rightfully mock it, but not only fail to notice even the most blatant propaganda in their own but even defend it. I suspect many Americans will do exactly that here, despite this being an obvious piece of fear mongering using basic techniques ripped straight out of a psychology textbook. > "As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves" > "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it." > "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address." There is nothing new here. From a different age, we had this observation from another power hungry man: "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." -Hermann Göring The U.S. constitution contains some strong protections against this road to fascism, but many have been eroded or subverted over time. Our government's design is intentionally inefficient, its members supposed to change regularly, and our court system is insular and slow for a reason. But these protections were created prior to the era of mass media, and now fear can be used as an even more powerful tool for control than when the country was founded. I suspect that in the long term, even stronger hedges against totalitarianism will be needed. Democratic republics work well when the voting public is informed, patient, and aware of history. If you can whip them into a fervor with fear mongering, make them forget the past, and make quick emotional decisions, then instead of a nation of citizens you have a troop of apes--far easier to control.
callesgg 11y ago
Not unexpected. It is easy to blame the the administration for the response. But it is not them it is the way the system is setup.(Well it is them to, and they are legitimately scared) Just as if Snowden had challenged it (i cite)"Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest" he would just have got fired and ignored(or worse), the people in the government is generally in the same seat. I think they could have mentioned some numbers of what the NSA actually does stop instead of empty threats of a dangerous world.
shmerl 11y ago
> Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. So it's an admission that they view unconstitutional surveillance as necessary for security? That's too bad. Because that surveillance is exactly what got "severe consequences" as in being challenged.
dllthomas 11y ago
"If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions." Horseshit. He's been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr spent in jail, totaled over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is facing the same order of magnitude in terms of explicit punishment? Moreover, when MLK received a sentence of 6 months hard labor following the Greensboro sit-ins, JFK and RFK intervened to get him released early. "In October 1960 Atlanta student leaders convinced King to participate in a sit-in at Rich’s, a local department store. King and about 300 students were arrested. The students were later released, but King remained in jail while Georgia ofﬁcials determined whether his sit-in arrest violated parole conditions King had received a month earlier after driving with a suspended license. After being sentenced to six months of hard labor at Georgia State Prison at Reidsville, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy and his campaign manager and brother, Robert Kennedy, helped secure King’s release. Their intervention in the case helped contribute to Kennedy’s narrow victory over Richard Nixon in the presidential election." http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_sit_ins/ http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encycloped... But apparently MLK doesn't know how to do civil disobedience, and the Obama administration would rather identify with his captors than with JFK. Finally, speaking of "the consequences" as if they're something natural and not something the Obama administration has direct and unilateral control over is disingenuous. If Obama issued a pardon, Snowden will have received all of the punishment the law requires. Snowden is not demanding a pardon - he is facing punishment (albeit not the ridiculously overwrought punishment you had in mind). We are demanding he be pardoned.
kitwalker12 11y ago
amazing how the response is about the consequences of HIS actions while the government did diddly-squat about their own
ellio 11y ago
This epitomizes why I will never consider Barack Obama a great President. I've seen good arguments that he is above average, even well above-average as a President. I respect a lot that he has done, such as engaging in effective diplomatic relations with Cuba and supporting a form of healthcare that is closer to universal. But I cannot ever look at a man who so openly and willfully jeopardizes the idea of a free republic and think of him as a good leader. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made…And a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.” Mass surveillance and government secrecy are one of the greatest threats to this ideal ever to face this country. Can we survive with them? Of course. Life will go on, we'll live in our houses and buy nice things and generally lead comfortable lives. But we'll never live as free persons, and even those of us with the most comfortable lives will constantly be looking over our shoulders, burdened by the feeling that something is very wrong.
abalashov 11y ago
A strong implicit presumption behind Snowden's motives, right or wrong, is that the justice system is sufficiently rigged by the state that he would not receive a fair hearing here. It's also very reasonable to suppose, as he did, that going about things in the manner that he did was the only way to achieve his stated mission, since, by definition, what he wanted to publicise was highly classified. The downsides for himself, and to whatever extent for diplomacy and national security, were worth it in his eyes. Thus, the idea that he should have instead "[c]hallenge[d] it, [spoken] out, engage[d] in a constructive act of protest" is facile gibberish, and, as to the idea that he should face the consequences in a trial by a jury of his peers, it would be akin to sheep negotiating with the wolves. What was he going to do, hold up a banner that says "[redacted]"? By the same token, it's ludicrous to expect the American state to pardon Snowden, with or without a petition. Snowden has irretrievably made himself a sworn enemy of the American national security state. The state could not possibly allow its legitimacy and legal supremacy to be undermined by his actions. His situation is not unlike that of politically persecuted activists elsewhere.

189 points by uptown 11y ago

jscheel 11y ago

Really, I don't know that anyone expected anything different from the current administration.

hackuser 11y ago
Would any administration act differently? Would any institution? Think of any institution you've been part of: * Part of the President's role is to lead and manage the Executive Branch. He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option. * Like any manager, the President also is an advocate for and loyal to his subordinates. The President is only one person; the priorities of the nation depend on his effectiveness as a manager and therefore on the loyalty and support of all those in the Exectuive Branch. * Notice that my first point referred breaches of "authority", not of law or rules. In every institution, the priority is not the rules or laws, but loyalty. That might not be good, but it's true. Egregiously break the law but be loyal to the institution and authority (e.g., torture, various corruption scandals), and you'll be protected. Be disloyal, and you'll never work in the city again and will be prosecuted if possible. Unfortunately this is true in almost every institution, in my observations and experience (and this is hardly a novel or controversial statement). I'd be fascinated in research on this issue and its solutions, if anyone here knows about it.
- jscheel 11y ago
  "Current administration" may have been the wrong phrase. I meant, whatever administration would be currently in office. It's easier for candidates to say something to the contrary, this was the only response I would have expected from any current administration.
- angrybits 11y ago
  Administrations often change their tunes to maintain a populist backing. They could have just said plainly, "Look, he did the crime and we are required by the rule of law to bring him to trial." and left it at that. But they didn't. They subtilely drilled home the "he's a traitor and a coward" ideas, and I am honestly not sure why. They have nothing substantial to gain by it, other than maybe to discourage future acts of subversion. Apparently, whatever the aim, they're willing to use the language of tyrants to achieve it.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    They are not required by the rule of law to bring him to trial. The law grants the President the option to pardon, and that is precisely what was being explicitly asked for in this petition.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option." He can, and he should have, not that I expected it. He doesn't have to (and shouldn't) establish that all breaches of authority are an option. But the most credible signal the President could send that the US government is not authoritarian and evil is to pardon those who, in good conscience and motivated by concerns about whether secret actions are authoritarian and evil, raise those concerns to the public awareness. If we're going to have secret programs carried out while blatantly lying to the American people about what is and is not done, and about what is and is not allowed, then we lose a good deal of democratic control over what is done in our name. Such programs may be necessary, but if they are then ensuring that at least those working on them believe them to be a good idea helps re-establish some check on the likely distance between what we want and what happens behind the scenes.

mtmail 11y ago

from June 2013

timtadh 11y ago
The response was made today.
- bcg1 11y ago
  They mean the petition was started in June 2013.
shaunrussell 11y ago
This is today's official response by the white house.

uniformlyrandom 11y ago

> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Not sure what I was expecting.

Raphmedia 11y ago
I am not from the USA and have little knowledge of such legal processes. Would he really be judged by his a jury of his peers? I was under the impression that he would forever be put to jail for treason the minute he stepped on American soil.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I am from the USA, and have little knowledge of such legal processes. That's the way they like it.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  It would probably be pretty similar to what happened to Chelsea Manning. Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. However they would love to make an example of Snowden.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    > Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. Weev got the same treatment.
- kenj0418 11y ago
  He would almost certainly be put in jail as soon as he stepped foot on American Soil. In most circumstances someone could make bail awaiting trial, but considering that he'd been hiding in another country (and the government would argue that he might run off again) it would be very doubtful for him. But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it). The term 'jury of his peers' means regular American citizens (not judges or other government officials). Sadly, the government has done a good job of convincing many people that all their spying on us is for our own safety. They'd just need to work to get 12 people that believed that (while Snowden's attorney's would work to get at least one that didn't). Though anyone that already (openly) had an opinion on his guilt or innocence wouldn't be allowed on the jury. (note: this is assuming a civilian trial. I think they'd have a very hard time trying to give Snowden some sort of military tribunal)

anEasternGoat 11y ago

Big surprise, right?

derwiki 11y ago

I would have preferred no response to "thanks for writing in, here's why you're wrong."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

electricblue 11y ago

Even if Obama believes this nonsense, he should still pardon him, if only to take a bit of wind out of Russia's sails. Snowden's impact on the US has been entirely 100% positive and he represents no threat whatsoever to national security. I find it a lot more conscionable than pardoning some well connected extortionist or whoever they usually pardon at the end of their term.

kang 11y ago

Typical government fear mongering. The government has done a good job of convincing the common public that this is all being done for their safety though the fact it not a single terrorist has ever been caught by this. This response, albeit a small one, repeatedly reminds people that "we live in a dangerous world". I would be criticised for being really extreme, but I would go ahead and say that on a subconscious level, the govt has instilled more fear in people than the terrorists.

juliangregorian 11y ago
I would say that the government is more of a threat than terrorists.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 11y ago

"Published Date: Jun 09, 2013" (Note: It had the minimum response signatures within a very short time period, too) Thanks for writing something 2+ years ago, here's some talking points based on our current administration objectives.

greenNote 11y ago
True, when I got the email this morning as a response, I had forgotten that I signed the petition. For a few moments I thought something good was going to be published.

bakhy 11y ago

yes, face the consequences, like Chelsea Manning faced them, locked up for years before trial, large amounts of time in solitary confinement. of course, whether the whistle blower actually turns him or herself over to such torture has absolutely no bearing on the constructiveness of the debate itself. that argument is merely a fascist ad hominem. something i could easily imagine Putin using, for example. it's obvious exactly what kind of "constructive debate" on surveillance the US government wants - none.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

I have doubts whether Edward Snowden would get a fair open trial, with a jury of his peers. Serious doubts. The entire Snowden affair reminds me very much of Daniel Ellsberg. At the time Ellsberg was condemed by many (especially in the military industrial complex) as a traitor but now I think that just about everyone believes that Ellsberg did a good thing for our country and society. I think that history will look kindly at Snowden - Lisa Monaco and President Obama will be on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue. I personally believe that we can have an effective intelligence force that acts in accordance with international law and protects our rights of privacy and due process of law. The overreach by those running our intelligence operations smells like a power grab that is not in the best interests of American citizens.

justin66 11y ago
> I have doubts whether Edward Snowden would get a fair open trial, with a jury of his peers. There's not really a lot of doubt. A trial under the Espionage Act is not a fair, open trial.
mbrock 11y ago
When John Kerry called Snowden a coward and a traitor, Ellsberg wrote an article for the Guardian, "Snowden would not get a fair trial - and Kerry is wrong" [1], concluding: "John Kerry's challenge to Snowden to return and face trial is either disingenuous or simply ignorant that current prosecutions under the Espionage Act allow no distinction whatever between a patriotic whistleblower and a spy. Either way, nothing excuses Kerry's slanderous and despicable characterizations of a young man who, in my opinion, has done more than anyone in or out of government in this century to demonstrate his patriotism, moral courage and loyalty to the oath of office the three of us swore: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-...
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Yeah. Its sad how the political class resorts to disingenuous lies whenever they feel challenged.

JosephBrown 11y ago

"Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest" How do you do this when secret courts can keep you silenced?

econner 11y ago
Agreed. And, of course the NSA only uses "lawful tools." Nope, never are they found unconstitutional.
knodi123 11y ago
Especially considering that the NSA has proven itself willing to tell bold-faced lies directly to congress? I mean, how do you whistleblow about that kind of thing without stealing classified information and releasing it publicly? This whitehouse response is a cruel joke.
caskance 11y ago
The same way William Binney did. He did things responsibly through the proper channels. The public didn't give a shit. The government wishes Snowden would have followed his example.

johanneskanybal 11y ago

Just a scorpion being a scorpion.

dudul 11y ago

When is the NSA gonna face the consequences of its actions? All these people who lied under oath in front of congress and the American people, when are they gonna face the consequences of their actions?

caskance 11y ago
Whenever someone makes them. What do you expect? That they will walk down to the local police office and turn themselves in?

vinhboy 11y ago

> Instead of constructively addressing these issues LOL. Tell me the last time our Congress have constructively addressed anything...

lettergram 11y ago
Actually, there was a group of whistle blowers prior to snowden who went to congress. The congresswomen who was working with them had her door broken down and was arrested for a brief time for holding confidential documents. It was actually all in thr PBS/NYTimes story United States of secrets. Probably the best documentary on thid whole thing i have seen.

swalsh 11y ago

This is an infuriating response. They never own up to their own wrong doing, make very strong accusations.... which, I suppose we're suppose to take as truth because they're the authority? Then they call for him to come back, and act like a fair trial is even possible. I don't think there's anything Obama can do short of a complete pardon to fix this. If we want a real resolution, I think we'll need wait until after 2016.

titzer 11y ago

The pervasive surveillance activities of the government are one thing; one could kind of expect it in the absence of law or a constitution. But it's not just that. The deliberate activities to undermine, weaken, and even ban encryption and the very foundations for secure communications is just plain dirty. It's clear that the thrust of these programs was never the best interest of the public, but furtherance of espionage and surveillance. But what is absolutely beyond the pale is the the deliberate construction of a wall secrecy with full cooperation of secret courts hidden behind a wall of lies with minimal oversight. This is not the functioning of a government that is trying to balance the rights of its citizens against security. It's a blatant attempt to construct an inner institution alien to democracy and alien to every single principle the United States was founded upon. The endless prosecution of whistleblowers is one more thing. It's shown the government as a cabal who will use every weapon in its arsenal to fight those who would do anything to expose how corrupt and self-serving it's become. Don't tell us to trust you. Why should we? We have no mechanisms to control or even influence this behemoth anymore. Do they really think that Snowden would have made even a dent holding a sign in front the of White House or appearing on a news program? Seriously? Do they really think he would have _ever_ faced a trial by a jury of his peers?

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
The Obama Administration has aggressively muzzled and prosecuted whistleblowers, possibly more than any previous president. It's remarkable that he would invite people to blow the whistle, given that sorry record.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  It's not just possibly more than any previous president. Public records show that he has sentenced whistleblowers to 25 times the jail time of all previous Presidents combined. He has also used the Espionage Act more than all previous Presidents combined.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Public records show that he has sentenced whistleblowers to 25 times the jail time of all previous Presidents combined. I strongly doubt that public records show that people sentenced were whistleblowers, or that the President sentenced them.

SCAQTony 11y ago

One thing is certain about the petition process, It has proven to be ineffectual and a complete farce unless it is about "Star Wars day" or "pardoning" a turkey in November.

plonh 11y ago
The petition process has one purpose, to provide an outlet for short attention span outrage, in a forum that poses 0 threat to the White House.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The petition process has one purpose, to provide an outlet for short attention span outrage, in a forum that poses 0 threat to the White House. Writing to the White House directly already provided such an outlet; what the newer formalized petition process does is two things: 1) It provides an incentive to aggregating related requests, providing an economy in reviewing and responding, and 2) Provides visibility to the requests and responses, which frequently serve as a focal point for organizing by the groups interested in the subject matter of the request. (#2, if anything, increases the potential political cost compared to the status quo ante to the White House, both from responses and absences of responses.)

phaus 11y ago

Sadly, it looks like more thought went into the response for the petition about building a death star. As far as the claim of "Hiding behind an authoritarian regime." I'm sure he would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it looks like they are all run by cowards. There seems to be a false idea in our country that civil disobedience demands martyrdom.

caskance 11y ago
>I'm sure he would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it looks like they are all run by cowards. Not a coincidence.

vessenes 11y ago

Interesting messaging about Russia; that's probably the most interesting thing about the whole note to me. Russia = authoritarian regime. I wonder when the US state department started approving messaging like that about Russia.

Zikes 11y ago
It's funny, I never really looked up the definition for Authoritarianism before. It's actually quite interesting. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 1. limited, not responsible, political pluralism 2. a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency 3. neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of anti-regime activity) 4. "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague
maxerickson 11y ago
There are a whole bunch of recent US geopolitical actions that are interesting to look at through the lens of lessening Russian influence. When US national policy is pretty much to undermine the Russian economy I'm not sure how worried the White House should be about how a particular statement gets parsed.
- vessenes 11y ago
  Well, I would term it more that policy is curbing re-emergence of a soviet-like political power. But, it's one thing to go quietly pursue cold-war style influence mongering. It's another to take that mongering out into the 'real world' of press releases words..
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Yeah, that's what people say, I just don't really get it. Kneecapping their economy is a lot more aggressive than any level of bluster or bravado, and has not been all that secretive in implementation (i.e., overt sanctions on economic sectors and particular individuals).

e28eta 11y ago

I'm disappointed in the response's content, and the huge delay - they could have written the same thing two years ago, it doesn't sound like their position has changed at all. I was surprised to see they've answered every outstanding petition today: http://twitter.com/wethepeople http://twitter.com/wethepeople

shaunrussell 11y ago

What a cop out.

Mithaldu 11y ago

As a non-american it's kind of hilarious to have the american government, with all its powers, assets and resources figuratively yell at a single individual: "Come out and fight like a man!" The fact that someone thought this kind of response is appropiate in any way means one of two things: 1. They think the american populace is irrelevant and they can flip them the bird unscathed. 2. They think they have substantial support by morons making up a majority of their populace who applaud that kind of response.

jgrowl 11y ago
Considering they were responding directly to people that signed the petition to have Snowden pardoned, I don't know how their intended reaction could be anything other than frustration and rage. It's like David and Goliath. Except where Goliath is the largest, most powerful military in the world with nukes and fighter jets. David is just a pale nerdy guy with a keyboard.
- zaphar 11y ago
  Didn't you know? These days the pale nerdy guy with a keyboard is almost more of a threat than a nation state with nukes. This whole internet and technology thing somehow got bigger than all of them when they weren't looking. All you have to do is look at the continued requests for a "golden" key, the constant attempts to get rid of net neutrality, the frequent attacks on various nations electronic infrastructure. Those guys with keyboards are scary as all get out to most of the governments out there.
meragrin 11y ago
The petition is specifically about pardoning Snowden. The President cannot pardon someone for a federal crime they have not been convicted of. Snowden literally needs to come back, face the trials, and be convicted before the President could consider to pardon him. To me, the response is a have your cake and eat it too kind of response. They hint at the technicality of not being able to issue a pardon in a way they sound tough on people like Snowden. Rather than "come out and fight like a man", it is "security, security, security, Snowden hasn't been convicted yet, security, security, security".

ionised 11y ago

This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read. > Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe. Yes of course he has. > Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. Has it? Has it really? Where's the proof of this? > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. He tried the official route a number of times and was readily ignored, remember? Given that the NSA's actions were deemed unlawful, his actions were in the public interest and he deserves protections as a whistleblower. However the people aren't fucking stupid. We know all he will face if he returns home is life in prison. At best. > We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. Hmm yes. All those civil libereties groups, charities, foreign businesses and allied politicians you spied on sure are dangerous. Got to keep them in check lest they attack America with their ball-point pens! My translation of this entire response; "We have heard your voices and grievances and honestly couldn't give two shits about what you think. You have no power here."

teekert 11y ago
> Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. As you say, where is the prove and also: He did not disclose the documents, respected journalistic institutions did. He did not just leak anything and everything. He did the right thing. This response is an insult to everybody who signed the petition.
- 11y ago

austerity 11y ago

Why do people who use the "face the consequences of his actions" argument consider it so self-evident? Accepting an unjust punishment for your good deeds isn't somehow more noble than escaping it. And not just an unjust punishment but an unjust punishment in the hands of the very institution whose corruption you exposed. Government lecturing us on proper civil disobedience is ironic to put it very mildly.

Zikes 11y ago
It's basically saying martyrdom is the one true path to change. According to this statement, if we want justice, "blood" must be spilled.
- jgrowl 11y ago
  It's like Jefferson said... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This isn't a one way street.
caskance 11y ago
If the law is unjust, changing the law fixes things for everyone. Running from the law tarnishes your own reputation while not fixing anything.

jgrowl 11y ago

> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. Secret courts, gag orders, free speech zones... How exactly does one speak out? > He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. A jury of his peers? You really want me to believe you wouldn't boot any of his actual peers out of jury selection? Implying Snowden is "hiding" when he's given up his family, home, and a nice paycheck is the most disgusting, cowardly thing to say. What a joke our government has become.

borrowedhour 11y ago

Reading the response it seems that they are planning to charge Snowden as they would charge Assange, eventhough Snowden released documents through responsible journalists..

angrybits 11y ago

The story this tells is so stark, I don't know what else there is left to say on it. They guy sealed his own fate when he made himself an enemy of the state, and I fear he will never get to set foot on his homeland again. One day, I hope he will be nationally recognized for his service to his people. In the meantime, the drastic divide between the aims of the government and the aims of the governed makes me grow ever more worried that we have dark days ahead of us.

Zikes 11y ago
He will be on the run for the rest of his life, until he's caught or assassinated. If it's the former, we have a responsibility as citizens to have affected enough of a change in our government to see to it that he is given a truly fair trial. If it's the latter, we'll probably never hear of it, or know the truth of it.

xwkd 11y ago

The response is the same as we've heard before: If you're going to engage in an act of civil disobedience, you're throwing yourself at the mercy of the justice system. When in recent years so many programmers have had examples made of them, I can't say I have much confidence in the fair treatment of a previously relatively inconsequential man who made a monumental decision on one of the defining ethical dilemmas of our time. There's a gauntlet of institutional embarrassment that he'd have to run through. I can't blame the guy for staying in Russia.

dataker 11y ago

>not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime Is the White House this much hostile towards Russia? Besides from Iran or North Korea, I'd never expect diplomats to be as straightforward as in this statement.

plonh 11y ago
Hey, after last week, Iran is not evil anymore. In fact, Iram has never been evil now.

MrZongle2 11y ago

Wow. A few dozen more unsurprising responses to high-profile petitions like this, and people might start suspecting that the White House petition site is really just a PR stunt by the current administration and not some kind of revolutionary, hopey-changey Government 2.0 effort.

smpetrey 11y ago

In other words: nahhhh

agd 11y ago

> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers Why would Snowden come back when he can't make a public interest defence [1]? The trial would be a formality and he'd be locked up for 40 years without being able to contribute to any debate. [1] The espionage act does not allow you to make a public interest defence and makes no distinction between whistle-blowers and spies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

caskance 11y ago
Because that would be a useful first step in getting that stupid law overturned. Unless you think it's more likely Congress will do it themselves?

sunstone 11y ago

The Snowden/spying fiasco is the biggest, ugliest black mark on Obama's legacy as President. He knew and he kept quiet and, as a former Professor of Constitutional law at Harvard he has absolutely no excuse. Not withstanding this late, clueless response to the petition, Obama's only real way of not going down in history as the "Peeping Tom President" is to pardon Snowden before he leaves office.

srj 11y ago
Interestingly I thought a pardon could only be granted after conviction but this 1988 NYTimes op-ed shows that it can be done: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...

plonh 11y ago

This will continue as long as people keep alternating voting for "American Empire" Republicans and "slightly fewer wars of opportunity" Democrats. There is a point where Third Party Candidate FUD is less scary the Two Party certainty. I have reached that point.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

They also (non)responded to this one: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-government-get-warrant https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-ecpa-tell-g...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago

I think Snowden is a traitor. Not for releasing the information, but for going to Hong Kong (China), and then to Russia. Snowden had access to a lot more information than was released. I do not honestly think Russia would have let him stay without requiring something from him. Taking classified/secret information to a hostile country is treason. If he had done what Ellsburg did and stayed in the United States and face a jury, I think a strong case could be made for pardoning him or for jury nullification. However, by going to China and Russia (which are actually probably more involved in monitoring and controlling Internet use by their subjects) he committed treason, and I hope he eventually gets handed back to the United States to serve a very long prison sentence.

Zikes 11y ago
I think you're skipping the part where he gave the information to respected Western journalistic organizations and didn't actually have it on his person when he went overseas. Because frankly, that would be an incomprehensibly stupid move on his part.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia "he gave all the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong" Therefor, he must have had access to the documents after he left the USA since it seems he gave them to journalists while he was in Hong Kong.
- caskance 11y ago
  Many people would say that leaking top secret information to the entire world and fleeing your home in Hawaii to live in exile in Russia would be an incomprehensibly stupid move. Yet he did that.
jahewson 11y ago
Last time I checked, China and Russia weren't "enemies" of the US, which is a necessary prerequisite to a treason charge. So, no, he didn't commit treason. He certainly broke laws protecting secrets - but the NSA was arguably abusing those very laws to hide their illegal activities - so who's in the wrong?

fixxer 11y ago

So, Snowden uncovered the government's willingness to violate civil liberties, yet should have still expected his civil liberties to not be violated if he blew the whistle? Ugh. Bunch of assholes we got running this place.

scrupulusalbion 11y ago

> Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. So this is what passes for responsibility according to the President's advisors? It might be appropriate to bring this up the next time Obama undermines some reportedly-bad Republican-made policy and the Repbulicans turn around and demand that Obama step down as president. According to Lisa Monaco, it would be irresponsible for Obama to run away from the consequences of his actions by not stepping down in that situation.

dean 11y ago

> The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate Oh the irony. deserves robust debate. Ha. It would all still be a secret if not for Snowden.

staltz 11y ago

Overall the response is appealing to the "fear" message: "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks" The fear message is the primary tool authoritarian regimes use to control its population. And this: > Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences ... "Steal" makes no sense as a description of what Snowden did. He didn't delete digital information, he just copied it. Everything that Snowden has is still with NSA. It seems this official response was written to appeal to non-technical people who are easily convinced by well-crafted government speech.

pizu 11y ago

"Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security.." Errr, really? What exactly are those consequences? Not a single person was hurt or injured as a result of the revelations. On the other hand, American people have learned a lot about their Government spying on their own citizens.

Zikes 11y ago
Those consequences are "classified."

Retric 11y ago

An interesting take, what about the thousands of people working with or at the NSA who broke the law and probably committed treason? Should they also face a firing squad as the penalty for treason?

yock 11y ago

We live in a dangerous world. And there it is. Their power and influence is dependent on the majority believing they are in danger. Gotta remind people of that notion every chance they get. Whether it's true or not shouldn't even be relevant to the law, but fear is a powerful motivator.

heavymark 11y ago

Surprised they responded at all since it was such a poor response. Ultimately they are saying he should have gone through legally channels even though of course doing 0 would have yielded 0 results, because he would have no proof. If he disclosed any confidential information he would have been arrested. So there are no legal channels he could have taken. Coming back or turning himself in won't do anything except allow the US to silence him, send him to jail where he will mysteriously be killed or such. Like all the men and woman before him who fought authority or the church he would ended up being written in the histories some day as a hero. But will be a long time before there is another time distance for the government to be able to admit that.

john_b 11y ago

It's really interesting to me how most people can easily spot propaganda in other cultures and rightfully mock it, but not only fail to notice even the most blatant propaganda in their own but even defend it. I suspect many Americans will do exactly that here, despite this being an obvious piece of fear mongering using basic techniques ripped straight out of a psychology textbook. > "As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves" > "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it." > "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address." There is nothing new here. From a different age, we had this observation from another power hungry man: "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." -Hermann Göring The U.S. constitution contains some strong protections against this road to fascism, but many have been eroded or subverted over time. Our government's design is intentionally inefficient, its members supposed to change regularly, and our court system is insular and slow for a reason. But these protections were created prior to the era of mass media, and now fear can be used as an even more powerful tool for control than when the country was founded. I suspect that in the long term, even stronger hedges against totalitarianism will be needed. Democratic republics work well when the voting public is informed, patient, and aware of history. If you can whip them into a fervor with fear mongering, make them forget the past, and make quick emotional decisions, then instead of a nation of citizens you have a troop of apes--far easier to control.

callesgg 11y ago

Not unexpected. It is easy to blame the the administration for the response. But it is not them it is the way the system is setup.(Well it is them to, and they are legitimately scared) Just as if Snowden had challenged it (i cite)"Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest" he would just have got fired and ignored(or worse), the people in the government is generally in the same seat. I think they could have mentioned some numbers of what the NSA actually does stop instead of empty threats of a dangerous world.

shmerl 11y ago

> Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. So it's an admission that they view unconstitutional surveillance as necessary for security? That's too bad. Because that surveillance is exactly what got "severe consequences" as in being challenged.

dllthomas 11y ago

"If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions." Horseshit. He's been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr spent in jail, totaled over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is facing the same order of magnitude in terms of explicit punishment? Moreover, when MLK received a sentence of 6 months hard labor following the Greensboro sit-ins, JFK and RFK intervened to get him released early. "In October 1960 Atlanta student leaders convinced King to participate in a sit-in at Rich’s, a local department store. King and about 300 students were arrested. The students were later released, but King remained in jail while Georgia ofﬁcials determined whether his sit-in arrest violated parole conditions King had received a month earlier after driving with a suspended license. After being sentenced to six months of hard labor at Georgia State Prison at Reidsville, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy and his campaign manager and brother, Robert Kennedy, helped secure King’s release. Their intervention in the case helped contribute to Kennedy’s narrow victory over Richard Nixon in the presidential election." http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_sit_ins/ http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encycloped... But apparently MLK doesn't know how to do civil disobedience, and the Obama administration would rather identify with his captors than with JFK. Finally, speaking of "the consequences" as if they're something natural and not something the Obama administration has direct and unilateral control over is disingenuous. If Obama issued a pardon, Snowden will have received all of the punishment the law requires. Snowden is not demanding a pardon - he is facing punishment (albeit not the ridiculously overwrought punishment you had in mind). We are demanding he be pardoned.

kitwalker12 11y ago

amazing how the response is about the consequences of HIS actions while the government did diddly-squat about their own

ellio 11y ago

This epitomizes why I will never consider Barack Obama a great President. I've seen good arguments that he is above average, even well above-average as a President. I respect a lot that he has done, such as engaging in effective diplomatic relations with Cuba and supporting a form of healthcare that is closer to universal. But I cannot ever look at a man who so openly and willfully jeopardizes the idea of a free republic and think of him as a good leader. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made…And a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.” Mass surveillance and government secrecy are one of the greatest threats to this ideal ever to face this country. Can we survive with them? Of course. Life will go on, we'll live in our houses and buy nice things and generally lead comfortable lives. But we'll never live as free persons, and even those of us with the most comfortable lives will constantly be looking over our shoulders, burdened by the feeling that something is very wrong.

abalashov 11y ago

A strong implicit presumption behind Snowden's motives, right or wrong, is that the justice system is sufficiently rigged by the state that he would not receive a fair hearing here. It's also very reasonable to suppose, as he did, that going about things in the manner that he did was the only way to achieve his stated mission, since, by definition, what he wanted to publicise was highly classified. The downsides for himself, and to whatever extent for diplomacy and national security, were worth it in his eyes. Thus, the idea that he should have instead "[c]hallenge[d] it, [spoken] out, engage[d] in a constructive act of protest" is facile gibberish, and, as to the idea that he should face the consequences in a trial by a jury of his peers, it would be akin to sheep negotiating with the wolves. What was he going to do, hold up a banner that says "[redacted]"? By the same token, it's ludicrous to expect the American state to pardon Snowden, with or without a petition. Snowden has irretrievably made himself a sworn enemy of the American national security state. The state could not possibly allow its legitimacy and legal supremacy to be undermined by his actions. His situation is not unlike that of politically persecuted activists elsewhere.