
A Response to Your Petition on Edward Snowden - uptown
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/edward-snowden
======
titzer
The pervasive surveillance activities of the government are one thing; one
could kind of expect it in the absence of law or a constitution.

But it's not just that.

The deliberate activities to undermine, weaken, and even ban encryption and
the very foundations for secure communications is just plain dirty. It's clear
that the thrust of these programs was never the best interest of the public,
but furtherance of espionage and surveillance.

But what is absolutely beyond the pale is the the deliberate construction of a
wall secrecy with full cooperation of secret courts hidden behind a wall of
lies with minimal oversight. This is not the functioning of a government that
is trying to balance the rights of its citizens against security. It's a
blatant attempt to construct an inner institution alien to democracy and alien
to every single principle the United States was founded upon.

The endless prosecution of whistleblowers is one more thing. It's shown the
government as a cabal who will use every weapon in its arsenal to fight those
who would do anything to expose how corrupt and self-serving it's become.

Don't tell us to trust you. Why should we? We have no mechanisms to control or
even influence this behemoth anymore.

Do they really think that Snowden would have made even a dent holding a sign
in front the of White House or appearing on a news program? Seriously? Do they
really think he would have _ever_ faced a trial by a jury of his peers?

~~~
blisterpeanuts
The Obama Administration has aggressively muzzled and prosecuted
whistleblowers, possibly more than any previous president. It's remarkable
that he would invite people to blow the whistle, given that sorry record.

~~~
ewzimm
It's not just possibly more than any previous president. Public records show
that he has sentenced whistleblowers to 25 times the jail time of all previous
Presidents combined. He has also used the Espionage Act more than all previous
Presidents combined.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Public records show that he has sentenced whistleblowers to 25 times the
> jail time of all previous Presidents combined.

I strongly doubt that public records show that people sentenced were
whistleblowers, or that the President sentenced them.

~~~
ewzimm
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:

[http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog1.php/2015/01/26/ob...](http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog1.php/2015/01/26/obama-
has-sentenced-whistleblowers-to-25-times-the-jail-time-of-all-prior-u-s-
presidents-combined)

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...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-it-11-or-
should-we-say-526?redirect=blog/free-speech/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-
it-11-or-should-we-say-526)

------
ionised
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."

~~~
toyg
_> "We have heard your voices and grievances and honestly couldn't give two
shits about what you think. You have no power here."_

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.

~~~
cjsthompson
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.

~~~
toyg
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)."_

Whole comment at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668684)
See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542546](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542546)

------
mark_l_watson
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.

~~~
cgearhart
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.)

~~~
Zikes
As I tried to point out below, this is exactly the situation jury
nullification was designed for.

Guilty under the law, but pardoned by a jury of his peers.

~~~
voxic11
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.

------
kang
Typical government fear mongering. The government has done a good job of
convincing the common public that this is all being done for their safety
though the fact it not a single terrorist has ever been caught by this. This
response, albeit a small one, repeatedly reminds people that "we live in a
dangerous world".

I would be criticised for being really extreme, but I would go ahead and say
that on a subconscious level, the govt has instilled more fear in people than
the terrorists.

~~~
juliangregorian
I would say that the government is more of a threat than terrorists.

------
Mithaldu
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.

~~~
meragrin
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".

~~~
glitchdout
> The President cannot pardon someone for a federal crime they have not been
> convicted of.

Yes, he can. [http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-
all...](http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-
pardons-before-conviction-590688.html)

------
bakhy
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.

------
electricblue
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.

------
JosephBrown
"Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest"

How do you do this when secret courts can keep you silenced?

~~~
knodi123
Especially considering that the NSA has proven itself willing to tell bold-
faced lies directly to congress? I mean, how do you whistleblow about that
kind of thing without stealing classified information and releasing it
publicly?

This whitehouse response is a cruel joke.

------
austerity
Why do people who use the "face the consequences of his actions" argument
consider it so self-evident? Accepting an unjust punishment for your good
deeds isn't somehow more noble than escaping it. And not just an unjust
punishment but an unjust punishment in the hands of the very institution whose
corruption you exposed.

Government lecturing us on proper civil disobedience is ironic to put it very
mildly.

~~~
Zikes
It's basically saying martyrdom is the one true path to change.

According to this statement, if we want justice, "blood" must be spilled.

~~~
jgrowl
It's like Jefferson said... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time
to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

This isn't a one way street.

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

~~~
plonh
The petition process has one purpose, to provide an outlet for short attention
span outrage, in a forum that poses 0 threat to the White House.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.)

------
swalsh
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.

------
vessenes
Interesting messaging about Russia; that's probably the most interesting thing
about the whole note to me. Russia = authoritarian regime.

I wonder when the US state department started approving messaging like that
about Russia.

~~~
maxerickson
There are a whole bunch of recent US geopolitical actions that are interesting
to look at through the lens of lessening Russian influence. When US national
policy is pretty much to undermine the Russian economy I'm not sure how
worried the White House should be about how a particular statement gets
parsed.

~~~
vessenes
Well, I would term it more that policy is curbing re-emergence of a soviet-
like political power. But, it's one thing to go quietly pursue cold-war style
influence mongering. It's another to take that mongering out into the 'real
world' of press releases words..

~~~
maxerickson
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).

------
jgrowl
> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he
> should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do:
> Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and --
> importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions.

Secret courts, gag orders, free speech zones... How exactly does one speak
out?

> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his
> peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now,
> he's running away from the consequences of his actions.

A jury of his peers? You really want me to believe you wouldn't boot any of
his actual peers out of jury selection?

Implying Snowden is "hiding" when he's given up his family, home, and a nice
paycheck is the most disgusting, cowardly thing to say.

What a joke our government has become.

------
phaus
Sadly, it looks like more thought went into the response for the petition
about building a death star.

As far as the claim of "Hiding behind an authoritarian regime." I'm sure he
would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it looks like
they are all run by cowards.

There seems to be a false idea in our country that civil disobedience demands
martyrdom.

~~~
caskance
>I'm sure he would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it
looks like they are all run by cowards.

Not a coincidence.

------
angrybits
The story this tells is so stark, I don't know what else there is left to say
on it.

They guy sealed his own fate when he made himself an enemy of the state, and I
fear he will never get to set foot on his homeland again. One day, I hope he
will be nationally recognized for his service to his people. In the meantime,
the drastic divide between the aims of the government and the aims of the
governed makes me grow ever more worried that we have dark days ahead of us.

~~~
Zikes
He will be on the run for the rest of his life, until he's caught or
assassinated.

If it's the former, we have a responsibility as citizens to have affected
enough of a change in our government to see to it that he is given a truly
fair trial.

If it's the latter, we'll probably never hear of it, or know the truth of it.

------
staltz
Overall the response is appealing to the "fear" message: "We live in a
dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism,
cyber-attacks" The fear message is the primary tool authoritarian regimes use
to control its population.

And this:

> Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified
> information had severe consequences ...

"Steal" makes no sense as a description of what Snowden did. He didn't delete
digital information, he just copied it. Everything that Snowden has is still
with NSA. It seems this official response was written to appeal to non-
technical people who are easily convinced by well-crafted government speech.

------
DannyBee
"Published Date: Jun 09, 2013"

(Note: It had the minimum response signatures within a very short time period,
too)

Thanks for writing something 2+ years ago, here's some talking points based on
our current administration objectives.

~~~
greenNote
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.

------
john_b
It's really interesting to me how most people can easily spot propaganda in
other cultures and rightfully mock it, but not only fail to notice even the
most blatant propaganda in their own but even defend it. I suspect many
Americans will do exactly that here, despite this being an obvious piece of
fear mongering using basic techniques ripped straight out of a psychology
textbook.

> _" As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have
> to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves"_

> _" Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified
> information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the
> people who work day in and day out to protect it."_

> _" We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats
> like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our
> intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address."_

There is nothing new here. From a different age, we had this observation from
another power hungry man:

 _" The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding
of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing
the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

-Hermann Göring_

The U.S. constitution contains some strong protections against this road to
fascism, but many have been eroded or subverted over time. Our government's
design is intentionally inefficient, its members supposed to change regularly,
and our court system is insular and slow for a reason. But these protections
were created prior to the era of mass media, and now fear can be used as an
even more powerful tool for control than when the country was founded.

I suspect that in the long term, even stronger hedges against totalitarianism
will be needed. Democratic republics work well when the voting public is
informed, patient, and aware of history. If you can whip them into a fervor
with fear mongering, make them forget the past, and make quick emotional
decisions, then instead of a nation of citizens you have a troop of apes--far
easier to control.

------
sunstone
The Snowden/spying fiasco is the biggest, ugliest black mark on Obama's legacy
as President. He knew and he kept quiet and, as a former Professor of
Constitutional law at Harvard he has absolutely no excuse.

Not withstanding this late, clueless response to the petition, Obama's only
real way of not going down in history as the "Peeping Tom President" is to
pardon Snowden before he leaves office.

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

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

Not sure what I was expecting.

~~~
Raphmedia
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.

~~~
kenj0418
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)

~~~
Zikes
Most importantly, anyone with knowledge of jury nullification [1] would not be
allowed on the jury.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)

~~~
bjarnagin
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.

~~~
plonh
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".

~~~
Zikes
At best, the juror would be dismissed and replaced as soon as their lie was
revealed.

At worst, the juror would be held in contempt of court (or similar) and become
another victim of that same corrupt justice system.

------
agd
> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his
> peers

Why would Snowden come back when he can't make a public interest defence [1]?
The trial would be a formality and he'd be locked up for 40 years without
being able to contribute to any debate.

[1] The espionage act does not allow you to make a public interest defence and
makes no distinction between whistle-blowers and spies.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917)

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

------
xwkd
The response is the same as we've heard before: If you're going to engage in
an act of civil disobedience, you're throwing yourself at the mercy of the
justice system.

When in recent years so many programmers have had examples made of them, I
can't say I have much confidence in the fair treatment of a previously
relatively inconsequential man who made a monumental decision on one of the
defining ethical dilemmas of our time.

There's a gauntlet of institutional embarrassment that he'd have to run
through. I can't blame the guy for staying in Russia.

------
yock

      We live in a dangerous world.
    

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

------
ellio
This epitomizes why I will never consider Barack Obama a great President. I've
seen good arguments that he is above average, even well above-average as a
President. I respect a lot that he has done, such as engaging in effective
diplomatic relations with Cuba and supporting a form of healthcare that is
closer to universal. But I cannot ever look at a man who so openly and
willfully jeopardizes the idea of a free republic and think of him as a good
leader. Alexander Hamilton wrote,

“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the
people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of
men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection
and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political
constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the
crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in
which that decision is to be made…And a wrong election of the part we shall
act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of
mankind.”

Mass surveillance and government secrecy are one of the greatest threats to
this ideal ever to face this country. Can we survive with them? Of course.
Life will go on, we'll live in our houses and buy nice things and generally
lead comfortable lives. But we'll never live as free persons, and even those
of us with the most comfortable lives will constantly be looking over our
shoulders, burdened by the feeling that something is very wrong.

------
MrZongle2
Wow. A few dozen more unsurprising responses to high-profile petitions like
this, and people might start suspecting that the White House petition site is
really just a PR stunt by the current administration and not some kind of
revolutionary, hopey-changey Government 2.0 effort.

------
scrupulusalbion
> Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.

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

------
abalashov
A strong implicit presumption behind Snowden's motives, right or wrong, is
that the justice system is sufficiently rigged by the state that he would not
receive a fair hearing here.

It's also very reasonable to suppose, as he did, that going about things in
the manner that he did was the only way to achieve his stated mission, since,
by definition, what he wanted to publicise was highly classified. The
downsides for himself, and to whatever extent for diplomacy and national
security, were worth it in his eyes. Thus, the idea that he should have
instead "[c]hallenge[d] it, [spoken] out, engage[d] in a constructive act of
protest" is facile gibberish, and, as to the idea that he should face the
consequences in a trial by a jury of his peers, it would be akin to sheep
negotiating with the wolves. What was he going to do, hold up a banner that
says "[redacted]"?

By the same token, it's ludicrous to expect the American state to pardon
Snowden, with or without a petition. Snowden has irretrievably made himself a
sworn enemy of the American national security state. The state could not
possibly allow its legitimacy and legal supremacy to be undermined by his
actions. His situation is not unlike that of politically persecuted activists
elsewhere.

------
dllthomas
_" If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he
should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do:
Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and --
importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to
the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the
cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the
consequences of his actions."_

Horseshit. He's been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr
spent in jail, totaled over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is
facing the same _order of magnitude_ in terms of explicit punishment?

Moreover, when MLK received a sentence of 6 months hard labor following the
Greensboro sit-ins, JFK and RFK intervened to get him released early.

 _" In October 1960 Atlanta student leaders convinced King to participate in a
sit-in at Rich’s, a local department store. King and about 300 students were
arrested. The students were later released, but King remained in jail while
Georgia ofﬁcials determined whether his sit-in arrest violated parole
conditions King had received a month earlier after driving with a suspended
license. After being sentenced to six months of hard labor at Georgia State
Prison at Reidsville, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy and his campaign
manager and brother, Robert Kennedy, helped secure King’s release. Their
intervention in the case helped contribute to Kennedy’s narrow victory over
Richard Nixon in the presidential election."_

[http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encycloped...](http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_sit_ins/)

But apparently MLK doesn't know how to do civil disobedience, and the Obama
administration would rather identify with his captors than with JFK.

Finally, speaking of "the consequences" as if they're something natural and
not _something the Obama administration has direct and unilateral control
over_ is disingenuous. If Obama issued a pardon, Snowden will have received
all of the punishment the law requires. Snowden is not demanding a pardon - he
is facing punishment (albeit not the ridiculously overwrought punishment you
had in mind). We are demanding he be pardoned.

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

------
dean
> The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and
> our Constitution require _deserves robust debate_

Oh the irony. _deserves robust debate_. Ha. It would all still be a secret if
not for Snowden.

------
e28eta
I'm disappointed in the response's content, and the huge delay - they could
have written the same thing two years ago, it doesn't sound like their
position has changed at all.

I was surprised to see they've answered every outstanding petition today:
[http://twitter.com/wethepeople](http://twitter.com/wethepeople)

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

~~~
Zikes
Those consequences are "classified."

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

~~~
hackuser
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.

~~~
angrybits
Administrations often change their tunes to maintain a populist backing. They
could have just said plainly, "Look, he did the crime and we are required by
the rule of law to bring him to trial." and left it at that. But they didn't.
They subtilely drilled home the "he's a traitor and a coward" ideas, and I am
honestly not sure why. They have nothing substantial to gain by it, other than
maybe to discourage future acts of subversion. Apparently, whatever the aim,
they're willing to use the language of tyrants to achieve it.

~~~
dllthomas
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.

------
callesgg
Not unexpected.

It is easy to blame the the administration for the response. But it is not
them it is the way the system is setup.(Well it is them to, and they are
legitimately scared)

Just as if Snowden had challenged it (i cite)"Challenge it, speak out, engage
in a constructive act of protest" he would just have got fired and ignored(or
worse), the people in the government is generally in the same seat.

I think they could have mentioned some numbers of what the NSA actually does
stop instead of empty threats of a dangerous world.

------
shmerl
_> Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous
decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences
for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to
protect it._

So it's an admission that they view unconstitutional surveillance as necessary
for security? That's too bad. Because that surveillance is exactly what got
"severe consequences" as in being challenged.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I think Snowden is a traitor. Not for releasing the information, but for going
to Hong Kong (China), and then to Russia. Snowden had access to a lot more
information than was released. I do not honestly think Russia would have let
him stay without requiring something from him.

Taking classified/secret information to a hostile country is treason. If he
had done what Ellsburg did and stayed in the United States and face a jury, I
think a strong case could be made for pardoning him or for jury nullification.
However, by going to China and Russia (which are actually probably more
involved in monitoring and controlling Internet use by their subjects) he
committed treason, and I hope he eventually gets handed back to the United
States to serve a very long prison sentence.

~~~
Zikes
I think you're skipping the part where he gave the information to respected
Western journalistic organizations and didn't actually have it on his person
when he went overseas.

Because frankly, that would be an incomprehensibly stupid move on his part.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
According to Wikipedia

"he gave all the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in
Hong Kong"

Therefor, he must have had access to the documents after he left the USA since
it seems he gave them to journalists while he was in Hong Kong.

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

------
heavymark
Surprised they responded at all since it was such a poor response. Ultimately
they are saying he should have gone through legally channels even though of
course doing 0 would have yielded 0 results, because he would have no proof.
If he disclosed any confidential information he would have been arrested. So
there are no legal channels he could have taken.

Coming back or turning himself in won't do anything except allow the US to
silence him, send him to jail where he will mysteriously be killed or such.

Like all the men and woman before him who fought authority or the church he
would ended up being written in the histories some day as a hero. But will be
a long time before there is another time distance for the government to be
able to admit that.

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

------
dataker
>not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime

Is the White House this much hostile towards Russia?

Besides from Iran or North Korea, I'd never expect diplomats to be as
straightforward as in this statement.

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

------
vinhboy
> Instead of constructively addressing these issues

LOL. Tell me the last time our Congress have constructively addressed
anything...

~~~
lettergram
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.

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

------
johanneskanybal
Just a scorpion being a scorpion.

------
fixxer
So, Snowden uncovered the government's willingness to violate civil liberties,
yet should have still expected his civil liberties to not be violated if he
blew the whistle?

Ugh. Bunch of assholes we got running this place.

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

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

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

------
kitwalker12
amazing how the response is about the consequences of HIS actions while the
government did diddly-squat about their own

------
shaunrussell
What a cop out.

------
anEasternGoat
Big surprise, right?

------
mtmail
from June 2013

~~~
timtadh
The response was made today.

~~~
bcg1
They mean the petition was started in June 2013.

------
smpetrey
In other words: _nahhhh_

