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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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)
This is a real problem. I was dismissed from a DUI case last year because I felt that it was a problem that the officer had forcibly administered a blood test while at the scene (this was after the Supreme Court case). The judge and prosecutor were very vocal about the fact that they were only interested in jurors who would be content to entertain whether the accused was intoxicated, without going any further into the matter.
I hear his sort of comment often. I don't understand why people value "being honest to a lawyer who is obstructing justice" over "fulfilling their civil duty to serve on a jury".
After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), despite what your very best intentions may be, I don't think the title "whisteblower" is still applicable.
First - no one has quantified what exactly Snowden has. Second so far only the western media have had access to the files. Third there was not any proof that he had copy of the information while he was in Hong Kong.
If you think the Chinese/Russian intelligence services haven't managed to get their hands on the entirety of what Snowden took I think you underestimate their prowess.
A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
If Snowden took out data with such ease, I am strongly convinced that other services already had a copy of the relevant info (and much more) before he even thought about leaking it.
Whether they had the information or not, giving them a plausible excuse to know that information is still a significant security breach. There are countless examples in the past where one party had secret information they were forced not to act on for fear of revealing to enemies that they did in fact know it.
Given the apparent security practices where Snowden worked, I expect the Chinese/Russian intelligence services already had the entirety of what Snowden took.
"A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make."
They might have done better if the NSA had not been deliberately undermining our ability to secure ourselves.
Whether they had the information or not, giving them a plausible excuse to know that information is still a security breach. There are countless examples in the past where one party had secret information they were forced not to act on for fear of revealing to enemies that they did in fact know it.
It is a breach, but only a severe one if there were things (of import) for which another plausible excuse could not have been trivially constructed. And again, this is an issue because individuals cannot credibly be secure, which is quite specifically something the NSA has worked to ensure.
As someone that exposes irregularities in government activity. Bradley Manning just dumped standard diplomatic cables. Very few of which contained information that was not "diplomacy usual"
There is a huge difference between Manning and Snowden. While I'm sure Manning meant well, and some of the documents absolutely justified whistleblowing, she was sloppy and careless and simply handed over the entire thing to someone else.
Snowden keeps control, works with reliable people, and only releases things that need to be released. Snowden, much more than Manning and Assange, is the kind of hero we need.
During the selection process for the Boston Bomber, a jury was selected of which only people willing to sentence him to death were allowed on.
Snowdon would get a similar filtration. They would filter away any techies, etc until all that's left are people who will take the governments word as gospel.
Ignoring the fact that the charges he's been charged with already don't allow for fairness, the trial process wouldn't make things any better.
"Most people from Eastern Massachusetts could qualify, as long as they assure lawyers and the judge that they are capable of handing out the death penalty, if the punishment is warranted."
While death-qualified juries have some unfortunate side effects, you're mischaracterizing it in a very misleading way.
If the law states that a possible punishment for theft is putting the thief in prison, it makes no sense to allow people on the jury who morally object to the idea of prison.
And both sides are involved in jury selection. But who cares about the truth when you can just spread antigovernment FUD?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
It is my understanding that the Espionage Act does not allow for an affirmative defense -- so Snowden can't claim that he was justified in releasing the materials, rather he can only dispute the facts as presented by the prosecution. But since we all pretty much agree about the facts of the case, the outcome is predictable. It would be "fair and open" in some sense, I guess, but the game is rigged. (Not to say that he is innocent or guilty, just that "come face charges" is basically equivalent to "come serve jail time" in this case.)
Yeah but the government would never allow someone who would nullify the law to serve on his jury. Just like they removed all jurors who wouldn't consider the death penalty from the Boston bomber trial.
Even so, few people know that jury notification is an option (and promoting it is actively discouraged by the legal community), and it would be hard to convince a jury that he was justified because he wouldn't even be allowed to claim or present evidence that it was justified. He would just have to hope that his jury knew about nullification, and that they knew enough about the case beforehand to believe he was justified despite the prosecution presenting evidence that he willingly broke the law. Those are long odds.
"Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. According to Ellsberg, his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment"
Chelsea Manning was basically driven insane before even getting to trial. Held naked in solitary confinement, in a cell not much bigger than a closet, and forced to stand for most of the day as to not be able to sleep. That prosecutors would stack the jury is almost immaterial - life changing punishment would be inflicted before even getting to that point.
This is worth pointing out. Despite Obama's criticism of Guantanamo Bay (in words only; actions are still lacking), it's important that we remember that Chelsea Manning was tortured on his watch.
> I think that history will look kindly at Snowden
I don't. As much as I want it to, and as much as the HN group wants to, the crazy (sad) thing is that a vast number of Americans not only do not know who he is[1], but those that do are polarized as to whether he did the right thing or not[2] - he barely won a majority vote of the minority who even know who he is.
Fortunately, the average American will not be writing the history of the early 21st century. Just imagine how horrible our understanding of past events would be if that was the case. And there's a number of people we idolize today that were demonized by the government of their time; take Martin Luther King for instance.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I'm sure you understood that I meant his administration prosecuted whistleblowers leading to sentencing. I was just quoting this article to make it easy for anyone who wanted to look it up:
Not Obama, but the DOJ and the Attorney General are part of the Executive branch in the US which means they work for the president.
The judges don't but like in most cases the prosecution has just as much and even more power (with mandatory minimums for example) to affect the sentence than the Judge it self in such case when the accused is found guilty.
The prosecution charges them with the crime, as well as asks for the punishment, they can charge them with lesser felonies or less counts, they can ask for a more lenient sentencing, but when they charge you with everything in the book 10 times over and ask for the maximum penalty by law what you expect the judge to do?
I think people don't realize just how much effective power and agency by law the US executive branch has compared to most other western democracies.
I would love to see both of these facts along with citations in an easy to read single page document. Are you counting Chelsea Manning in those numbers?
I figured the info would be easy enough to source with a quick search, as everyone has different sources they prefer to trust and I didn't want to make it about the source since it's all public record anyway. For example, if you like Jon Stewart, you can get it from him, but if he rubs you the wrong way, you can find the information elsewhere.
I did post a link in response to another comment here, but I'd still recommend doing your own research for the big picture. The war on whistleblowers is a very recent development in US history, and no previous administration has come down in the same way as this one.
This is partially a reflection of modern technology because information is so much easier to distribute today but also because the level of serveillance carried out by the government requires keeping more secrets than ever.
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.
> 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.)
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.
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
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.
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..
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
> The President cannot pardon someone for a federal crime they have not been convicted of.
Not only can they, but perhaps the single most well-known Presidential pardon in history was of this kind: President Ford's blanket pardon of ex-President Nixon for any federal crimes he may have committed while President.
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."
> 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.
I'd say the "dangers to public safety" are in the disclosing-to-the-public part of the transactions. Snowden did not do that as he recognized he should not be the judge on that. Journalists are as important as Politicians and Judges (or in the US: Juries) in keeping things aligned with "common interest" (for as far as such a thing exists.)
That's right. Petitions are just pleas to the king. Except that there is no king here. There is an oligarchy. This is what a republic is. In a real democracy (such as ancient athens) the citizens get to vote the laws directly and public officials are held accountable for their actions.
I'll just refer to one of my comments from 3 years ago, because this "democracy vs republic" thing is one of my pet-hate American myths.
"This split between "democracy" and "constitutional republic" is something being pushed more and more, but it's really a fantasy peddled by some US-based politicos with vested interests in devaluing the concept of democracy and making you accept the fact that you should be happy without it.
A "constitutional republic" is something defined by a set of laws with certain specific elements in common: having a constitution and being a republic (which is also quite a loose term, used to define "anything that is not a monarchy" -- Iran is also a constitutional republic, for example, albeit a theocratic one)."
When you've studied the roman republic and the athenian democracy it's obvious how the two systems are fundamentally different and have nothing to do with each other. And then you understand why early french and U.S. revolutionaries such as Madison were against democracy and wanted a republic because they knew that in the roman republic unlike in democratic athens, the wealthy ruled. The only one spreading myths here is you.
So let me get this straight. You want the same people who voted for Palin and are saying yes to a Trump president in the polls to decide policy? The thing is that as awful as our current congress is, at least it's their job and responsibility to come up with policy and vote on it. In severe cases you can call them out on it and they can face certain consequences. If voting on policy was to be done by the masses you'd have the same uninformed people who can't tell a presidential candidate from an angry potato deciding how much fish is legal to pull out of a specific fishing region.
Someone recently pointed out that California is as close to a direct democracy as we get in the US and look at what it's doing there: "Raise taxes? Nope! Fund schools: Yup!" People end up making decisions that benefit them in the short term while ignoring the global consequences. That's human nature and direct democracy assumes that everyone is an informed rational thinker.
No. I want you to pull your head out of your ass and realize that if elections ever changed anything they'd be outlawed. The game is rigged from the start.
Switzerland is a semi democracy. In Switzerland, People are allowed to organize a vote to reject laws and to enact laws. And there's nothing public officials can do about it. They are powerless against popular vote. The only thing the oligarchs can do in Switzerland is to manipulate opinion through the media. In certain Swiss cantons, common people gather four times a year on the canton's capital town square and vote laws by raising their hand. It seems like the "masses of uninformed people" in Switzerland are doing a better job than your mafioso leaders of whatever stripe because Switzerland has a much higher standard of living than the U.S. and incidentally has never waged war on anyone even having no oil reserves at all. Note also that democracy in Athens lasted for two centuries, which is longer than any of the today's republics and was one of the most powerful city-state of the time. So much for "direct democracy" not working. So now, please, don't bother with the usual parroting of platitudes (such as "human nature") and go educate yourself.
> > 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?
While not a general decline in the companies values, or stock, there has been an international backlash against US Tech companies[1, 2]. To say that these companies don't provide for the security, financially, of our country is a crock of shit. As for how the people that protect our country and work day in and day out to protect it being affected- you really thing the CIA is going to post about how their personnel got caught, or detained, or anything at all? No. You won't. Granted, a lack of proof is not proof itself, but open your eyes a bit and think about it. Snowden revealed all sorts of information that he should not have.
> 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!
Keep your enemies close and your friends closer. Everything but the allies I agree with you on, but I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping tabs on the policies of allied countries.
148 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 216 ms ] thread* 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.
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.
Not sure what I was expecting.
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.
That's the way they like it.
Weev got the same treatment.
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)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Of note: the Espionage Act forbids a public interest or whistleblower defense. His conviction would be a foregone conclusion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Detention
After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), despite what your very best intentions may be, I don't think the title "whisteblower" is still applicable.
A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
"A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make."
They might have done better if the NSA had not been deliberately undermining our ability to secure ourselves.
Snowden keeps control, works with reliable people, and only releases things that need to be released. Snowden, much more than Manning and Assange, is the kind of hero we need.
During the selection process for the Boston Bomber, a jury was selected of which only people willing to sentence him to death were allowed on.
Snowdon would get a similar filtration. They would filter away any techies, etc until all that's left are people who will take the governments word as gospel.
Ignoring the fact that the charges he's been charged with already don't allow for fairness, the trial process wouldn't make things any better.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/06/jury-selection-...
If the law states that a possible punishment for theft is putting the thief in prison, it makes no sense to allow people on the jury who morally object to the idea of prison.
And both sides are involved in jury selection. But who cares about the truth when you can just spread antigovernment FUD?
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.
(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.
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.
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.
There's not really a lot of doubt. A trial under the Espionage Act is not a fair, open trial.
"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-...
I think there are a lot of "security" hawks that would disagree.
Guilty under the law, but pardoned by a jury of his peers.
"Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. According to Ellsberg, his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment"
I don't. As much as I want it to, and as much as the HN group wants to, the crazy (sad) thing is that a vast number of Americans not only do not know who he is[1], but those that do are polarized as to whether he did the right thing or not[2] - he barely won a majority vote of the minority who even know who he is.
[1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...
[2] http://www.newsweek.com/most-americans-think-snowden-did-rig...
How do you do this when secret courts can keep you silenced?
This whitehouse response is a cruel joke.
LOL. Tell me the last time our Congress have constructively addressed anything...
It was actually all in thr PBS/NYTimes story United States of secrets.
Probably the best documentary on thid whole thing i have seen.
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.
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?
I strongly doubt that public records show that people sentenced were whistleblowers, or that the President sentenced them.
http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog1.php/2015/01/26/ob...
If you'd like more detail, here's the first source linked in the article:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-it-1...
The judges don't but like in most cases the prosecution has just as much and even more power (with mandatory minimums for example) to affect the sentence than the Judge it self in such case when the accused is found guilty.
The prosecution charges them with the crime, as well as asks for the punishment, they can charge them with lesser felonies or less counts, they can ask for a more lenient sentencing, but when they charge you with everything in the book 10 times over and ask for the maximum penalty by law what you expect the judge to do?
I think people don't realize just how much effective power and agency by law the US executive branch has compared to most other western democracies.
I did post a link in response to another comment here, but I'd still recommend doing your own research for the big picture. The war on whistleblowers is a very recent development in US history, and no previous administration has come down in the same way as this one.
This is partially a reflection of modern technology because information is so much easier to distribute today but also because the level of serveillance carried out by the government requires keeping more secrets than ever.
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.)
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.
Not a coincidence.
I wonder when the US state department started approving messaging like that about Russia.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
I was surprised to see they've answered every outstanding petition today: http://twitter.com/wethepeople
"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.
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.
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".
Yes, he can. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
Not only can they, but perhaps the single most well-known Presidential pardon in history was of this kind: President Ford's blanket pardon of ex-President Nixon for any federal crimes he may have committed while President.
> 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."
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.
How did the "respected journalistic institutions" get them if Snowden didn't disclose them once he had gotten them?
Isn't that the answer to all petitions? Petitions are just pleas to the king. It is in the king's prerogatives to ignore them.
What you need in a democratic society is not petitions, but acts of parliament.
"This split between "democracy" and "constitutional republic" is something being pushed more and more, but it's really a fantasy peddled by some US-based politicos with vested interests in devaluing the concept of democracy and making you accept the fact that you should be happy without it.
A "constitutional republic" is something defined by a set of laws with certain specific elements in common: having a constitution and being a republic (which is also quite a loose term, used to define "anything that is not a monarchy" -- Iran is also a constitutional republic, for example, albeit a theocratic one)."
Whole comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668684 See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542546
Someone recently pointed out that California is as close to a direct democracy as we get in the US and look at what it's doing there: "Raise taxes? Nope! Fund schools: Yup!" People end up making decisions that benefit them in the short term while ignoring the global consequences. That's human nature and direct democracy assumes that everyone is an informed rational thinker.
Switzerland is a semi democracy. In Switzerland, People are allowed to organize a vote to reject laws and to enact laws. And there's nothing public officials can do about it. They are powerless against popular vote. The only thing the oligarchs can do in Switzerland is to manipulate opinion through the media. In certain Swiss cantons, common people gather four times a year on the canton's capital town square and vote laws by raising their hand. It seems like the "masses of uninformed people" in Switzerland are doing a better job than your mafioso leaders of whatever stripe because Switzerland has a much higher standard of living than the U.S. and incidentally has never waged war on anyone even having no oil reserves at all. Note also that democracy in Athens lasted for two centuries, which is longer than any of the today's republics and was one of the most powerful city-state of the time. So much for "direct democracy" not working. So now, please, don't bother with the usual parroting of platitudes (such as "human nature") and go educate yourself.
> Has it? Has it really? Where's the proof of this?
While not a general decline in the companies values, or stock, there has been an international backlash against US Tech companies[1, 2]. To say that these companies don't provide for the security, financially, of our country is a crock of shit. As for how the people that protect our country and work day in and day out to protect it being affected- you really thing the CIA is going to post about how their personnel got caught, or detained, or anything at all? No. You won't. Granted, a lack of proof is not proof itself, but open your eyes a bit and think about it. Snowden revealed all sorts of information that he should not have.
> 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!
Keep your enemies close and your friends closer. Everything but the allies I agree with you on, but I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping tabs on the policies of allied countries.
1- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/edward-snowden-tech... 2- http://allthingsd.com/20131214/shareholder-suit-accuses-ibm-...