
Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal - mariusavram
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/18/dont-just-pardon-edward-snowden-give-the-man-a-medal/
======
peterkelly
Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for
their illegal activity: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-
idUSKBN0N...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-
idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507)

Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a
testimony to Congress:
[http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com](http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com)

Edit: /s

~~~
tzs
It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long
before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to
unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress.

He also took an oath later to testify truthfully at that Congressional
committee hearing.

When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?

Note that due to the nature of Wyden's question, Clapper could not simply say
that he could not answer and give as the reason for not answering that it
would require revealing classified information, because that itself would
strongly imply that the answer was "yes".

Also, didn't Wyden already know the answer to the question? I thought I read
that the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and also
those of the corresponding House committee) knew about these programs. If so,
then Clapper's answer (no matter what he said) would convey no relevant
information to the Committee. At common law, that would rule out any
possibility of it being perjury. I don't know if there is a similar exception
in the relevant perjury statutes for Congressional testimony.

~~~
vaadu
When oaths conflict, lying to Congress is still a crime. His non-criminal
response should have been "I am not at liberty to discuss program details" or
something along those lines.

~~~
niccaluim
And if the mere fact of the program's existence is classified? There's no way
to respond without violating one of the oaths.

~~~
EthanHeilman
"As you might expect I am unable to provide any comments which will confirm
the existence or non-existence of such programs."

They say that all the time.

------
callcall
We need to do everything we can to support Snowden. Do not let the cynics win.
We defeated SOPA in 2012 by making millions of phone calls to Congress, and we
protected Net Neutrality in 2014 with millions of public comments to the FCC.
Do not let the cynics win.

Call your reps: TryVoices.com Petition the president: pardonsnowden.org/

------
Sneakos
One thing this article doesn't take into account is that the movie the author
undoubtedly watched before writing this was full of inaccuracies, and had the
purpose of establishing Snowden as a martyr or sorts. This is evident because
rather than just prove their point, the author makes several attempts to make
sure the reader knows that if you hold an opposing view, you are
intellectually lazy and unable to cope with reality.

Not arguing either way, but if you are going to take a strong stance, don't
make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded.

~~~
omginternets
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak
minded.

What if you really think that's the case?

Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually
lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single
cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.

~~~
watwatwatwat
I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.

~~~
omginternets
>Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.

Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to
minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures.

You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness,
your comment is likely to be rhetorical).

More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some
unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified
nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning
voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and
perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present
danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its
citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity.

If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is.

If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations!
You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden
without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it.

(I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think
your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything
personally.)

~~~
tzs
[https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_sno...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_snowden_why_barack_obama_should_grant_me_a/d7kv7z7)

~~~
omginternets
Interesting. I'll mull this over. Thank you.

------
zeveb
An opposing view:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/09/what_snowden_gets_wrong_about_its_hero.html)

And the unanimous, _bipartisan_ report of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence:
[http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...](http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=692)

~~~
probably_wrong
I think the first article falls for the easiest of traps: it's a movie, not a
documentary.

Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to
the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless
exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position.

Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of
it.

~~~
nsxwolf
Mitch Hedberg:

I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of
silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car
into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know
what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"

------
mark_l_watson
A little off topic but: my wife and I saw Oliver Stone's movie "Snowdon" last
night with some friends. Everyone really enjoyed it (great acting, fast paced
story, basically a fun movie to watch - recommended!).

I think that Stone took some liberties with historical facts, but everyone
else I was with didn't agree with my skepticism. In any case, I would
recommend seeing the movie.

~~~
DougWebb
Oliver Stone was on The Late Show last week, and he said that he's a
storyteller not a historian, and that he couldn't tell the whole story in a
two hour movie and make it entertaining without taking some liberties.
However, he also said that Snowden saw the movie and approved of its overall
accuracy, accounting for Stone's needs to make a movie.

------
JulienRbrt
I am wondering, we always discuss about Snowden, OK he needs to be pardoned,
but what about Assange... I would like to remind you that he (and WikiLeaks)
revealed, as well, important documents about what do our governements and he's
still stuck in an embassy in England...

~~~
DogPawHat
I think what needs to happen there is that the US needs to promise not to
extradite him in exchange for him surrendering to the Swedish authorities for
the rape claims. I don't believe he should be extradited to the US to be
incarcerated under criminally draconian anti-whistle blower; I do believe that
he has to submit to a fair trial after being legitimately charged with a
unambiguously horrific crime. Assuming (and I believe this is the most likely
seniario given the info I have) that the Swedish prosecution is acting in good
faith and believe that they have a legitimate case, the US refusal to rule out
extradition is, quite frankly, obstructing real justice for the parties to the
Swedish case. Dealing with rape cases is far more important than grudges
against Wikileaks.

~~~
nikdaheratik
Assuming that everything Assange is saying about this is on the level and that
he's not just hiding out in the embassy to dodge _both_ legal problems.

------
tFXR89qo
Or... finally fix your broken judiciary so he can have a fair trial.

~~~
fixermark
That may not be possible given the category of law he's charged with. Since
his leak did damages to espionage programs that are undisclosable (under
classified information law), prosecuting him fairly may not be compatible with
the American system of justice as laid out in the Constitution. No real way to
do it without building a "star court" with privileged access to classified
information, that can therefore not be a randomly-chosen jury of his peers.

... which, one could argue, is a problem with the way the US runs espionage.

~~~
CaptSpify
Yeah, I think that's kind of the point. The fact that we _don 't_ really have
a method for conducting a fair trial for him is arguably a bigger problem.

------
grabcocque
Thanks to Snowden, the US intelligence services are now able to do more bulk
surveillance, and they do so on a sounder legal footing and with full
political backing but minimal oversight.

None of this would have been possible without Snowden.

So, thanks, I guess.

~~~
NoGravitas
Could you expand on your reasoning here?

~~~
freehunter
I can on his behalf, because I understand where he's coming from (though I
don't agree with the conclusion). I've actually heard this argument a number
of times before. Obviously I'm not speaking for him, just my interpretation of
where he's coming from.

Snowden revealed the things the NSA was doing that he believed to be illegal.
The government agreed that what the NSA was doing was illegal, but no one
really knew about it before Snowden revealed it. However in the aftermath, the
government decided that while the NSA was doing something illegal, they were
doing it because they believed it was necessary, and the government agreed. So
they changed the laws to make legal what the NSA had previously been doing
illegally. The net result is, everything Snowden warned us about is now legal
and nothing has changed.

An unfortunate, unintended consequence, but I would strongly hesitate to blame
it on Snowden. If he hadn't said anything, it would have continued, hidden
away. If he did say something, it would be codified into law. Net result is,
it was going to happen anyway. But at least everyone knows about it now, and I
consider that to be a positive.

~~~
rhino369
I think a more accurate description of it is: NSA was acting under the
assumption that it was acting legally. The main criticism thrown at metadata
collection was that it was a 4th amendment violation. However, a straight
forward look at US Supreme Court caselaw shows that it isn't a 4th Amendment
violation. The NSA's interpretation was correct.

What they overlooked was that the patriot act section 215, which they relied
on for power to ask for metadata records, only allowed to them data related to
an investigation. But they were preemptively getting all meta data totally
unrelated to any investigation.

So they created a new law to allow the NSA to collect targeted metadata. Which
some privacy proponents believe is just as bad, but it's definitely more
limited than what the NSA was doing before.

It was never reasonable to believe that the NSA couldn't ever get your meta
data. Police can get it for regular investigations too. They just can't get
everyone's for no reason.

IMO Snowden ended the bulk collection.

------
freyr
Interestingly, the editorial board of the Washington Post recently published
an article opposing Snowden's pardon.

The same Washington Post that published Snowden's documents, and won a
Pultizer for doing so.

------
Cypher
What good is a medal going to do? He needs to be president to sort this shit
out.

~~~
EdSharkey
What a lovely work of fiction it would be to envision a President Snowden. I
think it's the one-in-a-million chance premises like that that make the best
stories.

Alas, there's been too much two-minutes-hate, Emmanuel Goldstein-style
demonization ginned up against Snowden. He'll never get a pardon, much less a
medal or the presidency.

------
egberts5
I propose a new medal category: Arnold Benedict commemorative medal.

------
astazangasta
If he comes home we need to have a parade for him.

------
kerrynusticeNkJ
a medal, a metal how fast?

------
kerrynusticeNkJ
a medal, a metal how fast

------
maerF0x0
I dont understand what a pardon or a medal will accomplish. At this point I
would assume that the moment the US is aware of his location he would be
snuffed out, as discretely as possible. Unsure if there are any verifiable
marks that prove he's even still alive (like him sending signed messages or
something?).

~~~
Namrog84
He already did the thing. Do you think he poses any more real risk beyond that
of potentialially becoming a martyr? While it's likely some people wouldn't
want him being the voice for some things now. Anyone could probably do that
just fine. I'd be surprised if anything happens to him beyond maybe putting
him behind bars.

~~~
maerF0x0
Killing him would have a greater chilling effect.

------
vaadu
He should be executed.

What he did revealing domestic government activities is clearly whistle
blowing. What he did after that is inexcusable and on par with what the
Rosenberg's did.

~~~
MBlume
What did he do after that?

------
bsparker
A medal? I understand the importance of Snowden's revelations and I know he
believes he did everything the only way it played out. But that doesn't mean
he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should
come to his day in court. We don't know what he's given Russia or China in
order to remain on the run, even Glenn Greenwald admits that here, when
discussing Snowden's "self preservation":
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688)

~~~
nickpsecurity
"But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies
civility and he should come to his day in court."

The Constitution says we get due process in trials. People in Espionage Act
trials don't. Further, there's no intent by the U.S. government or courts to
prosecute anyone the leaks revealed were deceiving Americans in a number of
ways. Accountability works both ways. Either they all get tried for their
crimes with due process or I find it highly corrupt to only want one charged
while others remain above the law. I'm against him being tried unless the
others are and with a defense allowed with full access to relevant, classified
info. At least what's already leaked.

~~~
okwhatthe2
Indeed. This is bureaucratic warfare. We should keep that in mind when they
say "Us Vs. Them".

------
RogtamBar
He already has a medal, very likely.

He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia
shelters him is that he was working for them. It's a reward, and one they have
to give out, otherwise no on smart would cooperate with them.

If he wasn't a former Russian agent, it'd be better for them letting America
make an example of him, because what would make US look worse than jailing for
life someone who is widely considered a hero by a good fraction of population.

~~~
strictnein
Come on, you're acting like he celebrated his birthday at the Russian
consulate in Hong Kong and then stayed there for a couple of days until the
Russians secretly transported him to the airport for his flight to Russia.

Oh, wait, that is what happened.

~~~
coldtea
LOL, because where else would he go? Some western country in bed with the US,
or some third world place where people mysteriously "disappear" and anything
can happen?

