
Let Snowden Come Home - donohoe
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/its-time-to-let-edward-snowden-come-home
======
austinhutch
If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would
join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping
if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration
advocating for his freedom.

~~~
hueving
>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release.

All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John
Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who
Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

~~~
mortehu
I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high
bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as
mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue.

1\. [http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-
knowledge-s...](http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-
survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#Nonreligious)

2\. [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-
in...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-interview-
political-disengagement-american-public/)

~~~
alfiedotwtf
I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to
understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get
Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on
board.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I've always hated how celebrities join up causes

Why?

I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the
disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the
fact that people who happen to be famous _also_ advocate for causes they care
about?

~~~
alfiedotwtf
> Why?

Because most of the time it's celebrity endoresment - appeal to authority,
without having authority. Why should I trust George Clooney's opinion on
coffee let alone what he thinks about Darfur?

~~~
vacri
At least in Jolie's case, she's visited those places. Regardless of her
celebrity (and entourage), she has more personal experience than I do.
Exposure should at least count for something, even if you have to take
resulting comments with a grain of salt due to other factors.

I imagine Clooney's also had more access to finer coffee than myself, but I
can safely assume that adverts aren't expressing personal opinions in the
slightest. :)

~~~
fenomas
> I imagine Clooney's also had more access to finer coffee than myself..

I saw an interview where he mentioned this (probably Inside the Actor's
Studio). Words to the effect of: "realistically the studios are not going to
fund a biopic about Edward R. Murrow. So if I can fund it by doing coffee ads,
that's something I can live with".

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

~~~
Someone1234
And let's assume for a second that they did introduce actual reform. All that
would happen is that they would go back to pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Let
me explain how that worked...

So pre-9/11 the NSA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans (in most cases), so
instead they paid the UK's GCHQ to spy on Americans for them and then relayed
the intelligence to the NSA for analysis. This was and still is a perfectly
legal loophole. There are no limits on cooperation with other intelligence
agencies. When 9/11 happened the NSA got effectively a blank cheque and asked
to increase intelligence gathering significantly, so instead of continuing the
GCHQ misdirection they simply expanded spying within the US and then legalised
it (via executive order at the time, law later).

So the NSA was spying on Americans in the 1990s, they just had to do more
legal maneuvering to do it. It just got significantly worse in the 2000s and
they dropped even pretending that they weren't. Even if a stronger law
outlawed spying on Americans, you'd just see them go back to the GCHQ way.

PS - A lot of Americans seem to want the NSA spying on "foreigners" without
realising that that effectively opens the door to the NSA spying on Americans.
That way a call between a US citizen and anyone from abroad can be listened in
on.

PPS - Don't even get me started on the NSA's spying on behalf of US
corporations, that's a whole other can of worms.

~~~
munin
> This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole

no it isn't, EO12333 disallows the intelligence community from asking someone
else to do something that they cannot do

~~~
themeek
But if they don't have to ask, were it to happen, it would be legal.

It's like the recent Smith-Mundt reforms. You no longer have to prevent
propaganda from reaching the American public. You just have to not intend for
it to reach the American public.

~~~
munin
what? "if they change the law so that it would be legal then it would be
legal" is I think how laws work?

oh you mean if material spontaneously appeared? yeah... good luck explaining
that one

~~~
themeek
I'm confused by your response. I do not understand the point you are trying to
communicate.

~~~
munin
the law doesn't work the way you think it works

------
eli
Perhaps a minority opinion, but I believe the NSA vastly overstepped and that
they need to be reined in (much further than what the USA Freedom Act
contains)... but also that Snowden probably should face charges.

Snowden is charged with "willful communication of classified communications
intelligence information to an unauthorized person," which -- I think sensibly
-- is illegal even if the unauthorized person is a reporter and even if you
had good intentions.

I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law
is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make
that argument.

~~~
bbatsell
> I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the
> law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to
> make that argument.

You should know that he would be legally barred from doing so under an
Espionage Act prosecution.

[https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-
tr...](https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-
whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible)

[https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-
snowden...](https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-snowden-
would-be-barred-arguing-his-case-trial)

~~~
themartorana
This is the stuff of nightmares. My nightmares, anyway. A fair and speedy
trial in which you are not allowed to argue against the charges you face.

It flies in the face of everything American and everything decent. There's a
reason jury nullification is a thing - it's a check against the unbridled
power and resources of the prosecution, and any laws that may be unjust by
existing.

Seriously, it's crazy to me when shit is ruled inadmissible when the
information clearly has everything to do with the case. And if I put myself in
the shoes of a juror, if I pass a verdict and later find out part of the truth
was withheld, I'm very much going to feel that I was used - a pawn in a broken
system, and not at all a participant in justice.

~~~
eli
That seems a bit overblown. Nothing has been ruled inadmissible because
Snowden hasn't made in court or filed any motions -- this is speculation. And
"I had a good reason for committing the crime" is relevant to the case, but
it's not evidence of innocence. There's a reason jury nullification is a
thing, but there's also a reason the defense can't openly argue for it in
court.

~~~
deciplex
> There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason
> the defense can't openly argue for it in court.

The reason being that if jurors knew they could just choose not to convict
people who broke unjust laws, the conviction rate of the American justice
system would be cut in half.

------
sneak
Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers".

A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to
be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou
(the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him
had he made an even bigger issue out of it.

The people who should be supporting rigorous checks on government authority
and overstep simply aren't; the system is out of control and punishes those
who speak up about illegal activity. He did what any reasonable person would
have done in his situation when confronted with a massive criminal conspiracy.

A plea deal would allow the government to taint his actions, which were
nothing short of heroic.

~~~
rhino369
>A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong.

Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing
that the NSA is supposed to be doing.

Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying,
spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc.
etc.

Murky: internet meta data program that ended in 2011, prism, collection of US
data on overseas cables

Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Snowden wasn't elected to make US policy and he doesn't get to dictate what US
policy should be. The bulk of his secrets were directed at policies he
disagreed with, not law breaking.

~~~
wtbob
> Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Note that warrantless metadata collection is _not_ illegal, per Smith v.
Maryland.

~~~
themeek
To catch you up on the Snowden leaks the government was collecting a lot more
than metadata.

It's also true that Smith v. Maryland is highly controversial. The Third Party
Doctrine essentially states that you can't expect technology to provide you
technology so long as the technology is bought or served by someone else. Via
CALEA and the Stored Information Act, as well as 702 in FISA and a
constellation of other legislation (now Freedom Act as well) third parties are
forced to keep records on behalf of national security hawks.

In praxis this means that there is no manner by which I can communicate with
someone in private anywhere except for in my or their house - and then if I
willingly allow a third party product that has a listening device in my house
provided by a third party it is the law that I can not expect those
conversations to be private either.

Smith v. Maryland was in 1979. The world is a radically different place now
that software has eaten the world. It is not a good precedent and akin to
citing section 215 the way that NSA did.

~~~
click170
So this means anyone who buys the wrong Samsung smart TV is sacrificing their
right to privacy in their own home? Scary.

~~~
themeek
This is correct under the current interpretation of law.

------
tzs
There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often
overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked
information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is
supposed to be doing).

The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald
and Binney admit this.

See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly
interesting are Snowden's admitted reasons for working at the NSA in the first
place, before he knew of the domestic spying.

[1]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_officials_grudgingly_admit_snowden_forced/cru8s3x)

~~~
yodsanklai
> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not.

It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance,
killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole
world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it
doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such
issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

~~~
onewaystreet
And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?

~~~
DominikR
Because they have limited choice. In an oligarchy the marketing money tends to
go to candidates who support the status quo or even better - give the
oligarchs even more power.

------
krylon
If I was Edward Snowden, I don't think I would return to the USA, even if the
president offered me a complete pardon and a medal on top.

I don't think I could trust the US intelligence apparatus to not get me into
some kind of "accident" or come up with some fake charges to put me into
prison. Not to mention the risk of some "patriot" taking justice into his/her
own hands.

Which is very sad, but unless the political landscape in the USA - and
internationally - undergoes some _major_ changes, coming back to the USA would
be a stupid move for Mr. Snowden, unless he is ready to go to Jail for a long
time. And given the example of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, that does not sound
very inviting.

------
rfrey
"As Snowden intended, the primary impact of the leaks was on political debate
inside the United States."

I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill
the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her
allies.

That obviously doesn't matter in the short term; but so many things don't
matter in the short term.

~~~
nickbauman
I think the militarization of our local police forces and the tacit support of
interdiction, confiscation and especially their extra-judicial killing of
unarmed people has done more, but it's not an argument I want to win against
your assertion at all.

------
geophile
As a practical matter, he _can 't_ come home. Not even the president can
promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another
president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he
returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed,
with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on
him released afterward.

Put yourself in Snowden's shoes. What could anyone in the government say to
you that would convince you it was safe to return to the USA?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day
> there will be another president.

The President has the Constitutional power to _issue_ pardons, it does not
grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or
anyone else for that matter) power to _retract_ them.

> The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns.

Not to the extent that the new ones are covered within the scope of a
Presidential pardon.

> And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with
> blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him
> released afterward.

To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise)
if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is
ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's easier to retaliate when the target lives just next to you than in
another country. But (unless Snowden starts messing with the government again)
more likely than intentional government-sponsored execution (er, "accident")
is that some nutjob (er, "patriot") will take matters into their own hands.
And _that_ is vastly more likely when you're in the country and not abroad.

~~~
dllthomas
Actually, it might very well be easier (in many senses) for the US military to
kill someone overseas than domestically.

------
ra1n85
Don't just bring him home, honor him.

Ticker tape parades, a federal holiday, buy 1 get 1 free at Carl's Jr. -
celebrate what this man did.

~~~
thoman23
lol...the Carl's Jr. BOGO offer would probably go a long ways toward teaching
the average American who he even is.

------
adam74
> Michael Morell, a top C.I.A. official, called it “the most serious
> compromise of classified information in the history of the U.S. intelligence
> community”

Well, I'm sure if they had respected our right to privacy, Snowden would have
respected theirs.

------
tosser-004
Snowmen did two things:

1\. Exposed the tools and techniques of domestic surveillance. 2\. Exposed the
tools and techniques of foreign surveillance.

The idea of not prosecuting Snowden seems to focus on the commendable exposure
of the full extent of the domestic program.

I just don't see how one can ignore his exposure of the perfectly legal
foreign intelligence gathering.

~~~
marssaxman
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

~~~
rhino369
And people with security clearance shouldn't get to individually determine
what is right by their own moral code.

~~~
zethraeus
that seems arbitrary and at odds with the modern considerations of superior
orders

~~~
rhino369
I don't see why it's arbitrary.

It's not at odds with the dismissal of the Nuremburg defense because it was a
violation of the international law. I do have to admit that is sort of a cop
out since international law at the time was more moral than real law.

Another huge distinction is that nobody was charged at Nuremburg for not
exposing the crimes, they were charged with aiding them. If Snowden had a
moral issue spying on people, he could quit.

Also at Nuremburg, we were just punishing the losers of a war.

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

~~~
MrZongle2
A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the
White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting
at least until 2020.

~~~
mason240
Rand Paul might pardon him.

~~~
gweinberg
Except he has no chance of winning. I'll vote for him anyway, but...

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

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

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

~~~
dmfdmf
I agree. They would lie to get him home and if the government reneged on an
agreement most Americans wouldn't really care so he would be doomed. I think
political asylum in a Western European country would be his best option now.
Hopefully Germany steps up and does this as I thought they were seriously
considering doing so when his Russian visa was expiring but were pressure by
the US not to help him.

~~~
krylon
The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would
be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well,
at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to
Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek
asylum there.

~~~
dmfdmf
You might be right about Germany, granting asylum would certainly impose high
political cost that they may not want to bear. However, of all the other
countries I'd think that Germany would be one that knows a thing or two about
the dangers of the direction we are heading. Also, if they did this it might
be just the message the US intelligence agencies need to realize they are out
of control and check their course. I can't believe there aren't people within
these agencies who are not comfortable with the direction they are going with
mass surveillance. Snowden asylum would morally strengthen their opposition.

Finally, I don't think Snowden is safe in Russia so I hope he gets out soon.

------
markdown
> has been languishing in Vladimir Putin’s Russia for almost two years.

Is this like Obama's USA? What is the purpose of calling it Putin's Russia?

~~~
vonklaus
While it is a stupid distinction, and one I wouldn;t personally use, it is
objectively true Putin exerts a bit more control over Russia than Obama
commands in the USA.

~~~
foxhedgehog
This is an understatement. Imagine if Obama had worked for the CIA his whole
life, had come to power in a nondemocratic fashion mysteriously after Bill
Clinton was forced to step down, had nationalized Chevron and put the CIA in
charge, imprisoned the Koch brothers, invaded Mexico twice, held a series of
sham elections, stayed in power for decades, and was rumored to be one of the
richest people on the planet.

"The Man Without a Face" by Masha Gessen is a great read on Putin's rise to
power.

[http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-
Unlikely/dp/159...](http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-
Unlikely/dp/1594486514)

------
chejazi
On the flip side, by not bringing charges against the NSA, there is a clear
double standard:

"...the agency had breached its own privacy rules or overstepped its legal
authority thousands of times a year since 2008."

"Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes... that he should face."

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

~~~
themartorana
I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that
matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.

~~~
vacri
Waterboarding definitely is, according to the American Convention on Human
Rights, to which the US is a signatory:
[http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_...](http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm)

It's article 5.2, sandwiched in-between 'you have the right not to be
murdered' and 'you have the right not to be enslaved'.

Article 11 is fairly wishy-washy, but it states that privacy is also
considered a human right.

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

~~~
dllthomas
It would be nice if he could see his family again, and moving one person is
much cheaper than moving many.

~~~
CalRobert
Fair point. Home is a complex idea.

------
fixermark
Oh man. That'd be great.

Never, never, never going to happen. Not in this generation, anyway. Maybe in
20, 30 years.

------
cpt1138
After Ross William Ulbricht was given two life sentences for running Silk
Road, someone posted the Federal Guidelines for Life Sentences.

link: [http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-
pub...](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub..).

One thing that struck me is that after reading this, it seemed like a
mathematical tally that was entirely reasonable that he be given a life
sentence given the point system.

Given that the first instances in the guidelines where life sentences are
handed out are treason and espionage (drug trafficking is second), isn't there
a significant concern that if Snowden came back, already admitting what he
did, he'd just rot in prison with a pre-tallied up score?

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

0 -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917)

------
tosseraccount
Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents?

Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them?

Isn't this treason?

Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand
trial.

If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against
him.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Isn't this treason?

Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the
US has _prosecuted_ (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and
there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was
charged under.

~~~
dllthomas
The constitution says of treason:

 _" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."_

This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our
enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution
continues:

 _" No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."_

Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here,
assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.

------
Friedduck
It took me a long time to come around to the perspective that we should him as
a hero and patriot rather than a traitor, but that's where I've ended up.

We don't view the reporters who uncovered Watergate this way--why him?

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

~~~
ytdht
Like this one that one never answered:
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-
snow...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden) ?

~~~
Codephene
That one may be obsolete by now... Here is another:
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-
presidential-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential-
pardon-edward-snowden-any-crimes-comitted)

~~~
dllthomas
I find the wording more questionable in this one. Still signed, though.

------
peter303
Probably not until the Millennials are in political power. Too many of the
older generation think he was naughty.

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

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

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

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

~~~
dllthomas
I agree. But hopefully we can provide a bigger incentive _not_ to.

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

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

~~~
aikah
He didn't sold anything to Russia, the leaks are public throwaway shill.
That's called whistle blowing and he exposed the wickedness and the corruption
of your "adored" government. But Ignorance is bliss for some.

~~~
tomohawk
I'm sure a nice guy like Putin is only putting up Snowden in Russia out of the
kindness of his heart.

~~~
dllthomas
No, Putin is doing it because it's politically advantageous and/or he enjoys
sticking it to the US.

But Snowden is in Russia because the US kept him there while he was passing
through (going so far as to _force down the plane of the President of Bolivia_
on suspicion Snowden might be on board).

