
22k more signatures needed on the Snowden pardon petition - jenius
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD?v1
======
comex
Want a preview of the exact text the White House will use to not comment?

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-
commen...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-
chris-williams)

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-
commen...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-
leonard-peltier)

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-
can’t-comme...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-
can’t-comment-marc-emery)

Though maybe we'll get extra lucky and get a non-form non-response, like
Bradley Manning's:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-
commen...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-
bradley-manning)

~~~
drawkbox
This is a defeatist attitude. But you are voicing your disapproval if it makes
it. They know if they are doing wrong if you tell them. Of course it will be
like that. But it is the principle of it. They'll probably raise signatures to
250k if it passes, and we should take it past that as well. I am of the ideal
that you should never let freedoms go away easily, voice your disapproval.

If it is legal, made by executive orders only via Patriot Act proxies, then we
aren't really in a free society anymore. Make a public congressional vote if
it is legal, until then is it really legal? What precedent does this set for
1-2 decades from now, not just if it is ok now?

------
ScottBurson
The reason petitions like this are important is that ultimately, the fate of
whistleblowers must rest in the hands of the people. The government _must_
prosecute leakers; failure to do so would invite rampant leaking, placing
essential secrecy in the hands of every single individual with access to
confidential information. The key question about a leak is: does the value of
the information being public outweigh the cost to national security? The
ultimate arbiter of this question can only be the people. The executive branch
is too invested in maintaining security; the judicial branch is charged with
enforcing the law, not with making policy judgments; and the legislative
branch, while it can be very influential, has (at least in the US) no direct
control over the fate of any particular whistleblower.

So the only way to keep a whistleblower out of prison has to be by the sheer
weight of public opinion. There isn't any other way and there never can be.
This is one responsibility we cannot delegate to our elected representatives,
because it directly contradicts other responsibilities we have placed on them.

So, if you believe, as I do, that we are better off for Snowden's revelations
-- that we desperately need to have a national conversation about what our
government is doing to protect us, and whether the price of that is worth
paying; that the material Snowden has leaked has been essential in bringing
that conversation into focus and drawing attention to it; and that the damage
to national security is minimal -- then I urge you to sign this petition.

------
rdudekul
"Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a full,
free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have
committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs."

Looks completely reasonable to me and hence I just signed the petition.

------
codex
Does it set a good example to pardon someone who leaked classified information
and endangered national security (i.e. treason)? Possibly. I would pardon them
only if they had whistleblower status--i.e. the leaked programs were illegal.

Morally, perhaps we should wait to see whether the programs are ruled illegal
before deciding to ask for a pardon. So far the administration and Congress
(two out of three branches) have maintained that they are legal.

Politically, the administration would not want to undermine their talking
points--that the programs were legal--by giving implicit whistleblower status
to the leaker, thereby implying they were illegal after all.

~~~
codex
Ah, the partisan downvotes arrive sans open debate.

~~~
jkat
I strongly disagree with it, but it's been stated a few times that it's ok to
use downvote if you disagree (1). This is certainly not a new thing around
here...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

~~~
gridmaths
A reply giving the reason you disagree has the benefit of preserving both
sides of the argument.

------
SCAQTony
Thank you for posting that. The more refusals the White House is forced to
dols out, the more it illustrates what a "dog and pony show" show this
administration is. If the petition gets as many as 200,000 or 300,000
signatures which is possible it may signal to other politicians that a storm
is brewing. It was like this for Vietnam.

~~~
encoderer
Nobody can please a cynic. When it comes to the White House petitions, maybe
you are the one entirely level-headed critic I've come across. But there seems
to be no way for them to win you over short of doing precisely what you think
ought to be done.

Their petition promises a white house response. That's it. It's entirely
likely the response will be "Snowden is a criminal. Leaking is a crime. We
will not pardon him because I, Barack Obama, don't think that's the right and
just thing to do."

But nope, to you that's another act in their "dog and pony show".

Also, if the petition does reach that 300k mark you mentioned, that means it
earned the support of 0.12% of the internet-using American public. Perspective
matters.

(To be clear, I don't support the spying. I do think the reaction has been
overblown in some cases but the program should end. To paraphrase Bill Maher,
"This doesn't worry me all that much but it IS a slippery slope, and that's
coming from a guy who thinks most 'slippery slope' arguments are bullshit".

------
vijayboyapati
Honest question: why would anyone assume such a petition would have any effect
whatsoever? This is the same institution - the state - which has repeatedly
and unashamedly told the most blatant lies to further its interest (increasing
its power at the expense of the sovereignty of the people). Sure the petition
might result in some bleating from POTUS, but does anyone seriously believe
this would lead to Snowden being pardoned? The people in power will never
countenance letting such a precedent stand. What Snowden did presents an
existential threat to the establishment. He's going to be made an example of,
regardless of the campaigning of idealists who believe the state can be
cajoled into behaving benevolently.

~~~
jjoonathan
No, nobody thinks they are exercising concrete power by signing a petition.
However, those who _do_ have authority over this case are well aware that the
difference between an effective example and a martyr is primarily one of
popularity. The petition aims to prove that Snowden is popular.

~~~
vijayboyapati
If Snowden were popular in the sense that matters, there would be protests
down the thoroughfares of American cities to free him. Sadly he is not popular
in the sense that matters. He's not popular in the same way that free
abortions are popular. He's not even popular in the way that legalizing
marijuana is popular. He's just popular enough that libertarian-types (of whom
I count myself as one) scream indignant outrage at the grim reality that has
been exposed to us (and which many of us have long suspected existed). Most of
the rest of the population is already yawning and moving on to the next story.
The Economist lead with a piece today barely acknowledging the Orwellian
nature of the PRISM program, blandly stating "Our point is not that America's
spies are doing the wrong things, but that the level of public scrutiny is
inadequate".

The true lesson to those of us who cherish freedom is the awful extent to
which we have lost.

------
gburt
The response is going to look something like "because we don't know the full
extent 'related to the NSA surveillance programs,' we cannot make any such
promises" mixed in with some reasonable sounding stuff about due process and
rule of law.

~~~
a3n
And so it's going to be an empty response, as cynically predicted.

Which is good.

This is a system that the White House devised itself, and like so many
statements and positions it took, it never thought it was actually going to be
held accountable. What they didn't realize is that it actually _will_ serve a
useful pupose.

The sooner and more the WH makes cynical non-responses to these petitions, and
is caught in lie after hypocritical lie, the sooner the majority of people
will hold the WH, Congress and the government itself in open contempt. Then we
can get on to the next stage, whatever that's going to be.

------
kintamanimatt
You can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime. This petition
is somewhat premature and presumptuous!

~~~
genwin
The president can indeed do that. See Proclamation 4311 for Nixon, signed by
Ford.

~~~
kintamanimatt
It stems from the president's constitutionally granted pardon powers. SCOTUS
decided this also includes the ability to grant amnesty.

It's a petition for amnesty because he hasn't been convicted of a crime, yet.
Colloquially the two words are pretty much interchangeable, but pardons and
amnesties are different things.

------
jaegerpicker
Look, 77k people for the NSA to target heavily.

I signed it too, Hi NSA you'll get bored real quick reading my traffic ;)

~~~
drawkbox
77k statesmen more like it. If it doesn't reach 100k I'll be pretty taken back
by the lack of spine in Americans today. Go back 10-20 years and it would be a
much bigger push back.

Freedoms are easy to give up, but you have to fight to get them back. Maybe we
shouldn't give them up so easy.

When you have to break the law to reveal constitutional attacks that are
illegal to even speak about yet might itself be illegal, something is wrong
and it is an un-winnable situation.

If I was the NSA I'd do the same thing, it is their job to pry for national
security. But it is our job to let them know when they have gone to far or
just gotten lazy. Is it really too hard to ask for judicial approvals?
Oversight? And when the executive branch overreaches happen yet make emergency
directives to make it legal those need a check. Yes a free society is harder
to manage, but others fought and died for that for us, least we can do is hold
strong. Authoritarian nations are much easier for the leaders and much harder
on individuals/citizens.

Then again the ARPAnet was a DoD project, it is ultimately the best honeypot
in the history of the world.

------
jluxenberg
Well this is awfully suspicious

    
    
      $ dig @8.8.8.8 petitions.whitehouse.gov
    
      ; <<>> DiG 9.6-ESV-R4-P3 <<>> @8.8.8.8 petitions.whitehouse.gov
      ; (1 server found)
      ;; global options: +cmd
      ;; Got answer:
      ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 39404
      ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
    
      ;; QUESTION SECTION:
      ;petitions.whitehouse.gov.	IN	A
    
      ;; Query time: 500 msec
      ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
      ;; WHEN: Sat Jun 15 18:05:23 2013
      ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 42

~~~
kintamanimatt
This site seems to fail a lot. Every time it does someone interprets it as
being suspicious, especially when their pet petition is getting attention on a
site they frequent. Don't read too much into it!

~~~
breck
I've noticed a lot of downtime on this site too. I agree it's not suspicious.
I imagine this site gets a lot of traffic. I'd be curious to see uptime stats
over time. Like "downforeveryoneorjustme" except more like Pingdom. Is there a
service like Pingdom for checking uptime stats on public sites like this?

