If you make a martyr out of Snowden you'll bring a lot of negative attention to the issue of mass-surveillance. So the best outcome from the USG's perspective is for Snowden to go through some level of punishment that will act as a deterrent for other would-be whistle-blowers while not rustling the feathers of anti mass-surveillance proponents.
Makes you wonder, does the USG feel a sense of relief now that all this mass-surveillance stuff is out there and the general public doesn't care that much?
Yeah, maybe there is some slow-burning anger that will cause problems later, and maybe there have been bad consequences that haven't been revealed, but for the most part this seems to have worked out great for them. They can pat themselves on the back for "passing reforms", and not a lot of people care (at least anymore?).
> Makes you wonder, does the USG feel a sense of relief now that all this mass-surveillance stuff is out there and the general public doesn't care that much?
Referring to the US government as a single entity is a bit of a simplification, considering it's made up of millions of American employees and contractors. Many of them support privacy, and want surveillance reform. Also, there's been a large amount of ongoing public outcry, which keeps leading to more security advances in mass market products.
Am I the only person who welcomes this? Obama could come out tomorrow and admit he was wrong and people would still think there is some ulterior motive there. Of course, the government has lied before, but Holder isn't even part of the administration anymore. The fact that anyone, even someone no longer in the loop at least acknowledge that the leaks might have had a positive effect is a concession from the hardline conservative, Snowden-was-wrong side, if anything.
I welcome Eric Holder's honesty as well. It sets a good precedent for more (current and former) officials to come out and say, "these disclosures actually empowered the American people."
Eric Holder only has motives now because it means cash and TV time for his law firm.
If he honestly felt this way previously he would have done more to get Snowden a fair deal while he had the power.
The attorney general does not act on the white house or political party whims, Holder had no real influence pushing his opinions on Snowden and the leaks.
Can Holden? ... if there's some reason for a "deal", then there must be something important (in easily copied digital form) that he still holds as leverage.
Are you serious? I think you might be watching too much TV :-) Killing him would accomplish no objective that the government cares enough about at this point to risk the massive backlash that would occur. Sure, the government wants to punish him for the leak in order to deter future leaks, but that's jail time, a completely different ballpark than assassination. From the USG's perspective Snowden has done all the unlawful damage (in their eyes) he can do.
There is no way the USG would assassinate a civilian citizen in that way. I could see them killing a person who has become an anti-US belligerent in a combat area, but approving even that will involve much legal review and wringing of hands.
I don't watch TV. Not much into movies either. My impression of what the USG routinely does to particularly bothersome people is based on a history of those kinds of people having convenient accidents. As long as it actually looks like an accident most Americans accept that it was and quickly forget about it. And the wet workers in secret government are good at staging accidents. I would say that kind of end would be a stronger deterrent to future leakers than any legal consequences.
It's a common conspiracy theory, in part because it's a good one. It's very difficult to disprove, and it's easy enough to find troublemakers who have died in accidents.
Accidents are, by their very nature, caused by unusual events... so it's easy to see a conspiracy where there isn't one.
Of course, the flipside of that coin is that if the government was skillfully staging "accidents" it would be very difficult to prove.
Personally, I think that snowden showed that we... well, our government isn't competent enough to pull that sort of thing off cleanly. Someone would let a powerpoint deck slip somewhere, and word would get out.
but... like I said, it's a good conspiracy theory, 'cause it's so difficult to prove either way.
Heh, maybe the only spy detail he'd have is to protect him, make sure he doesn't accidentally die or get killed by someone wanting to frame the US for it.
> Holder said “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and that “his actions spurred a necessary debate” that prompted President Obama and Congress to change policies on the bulk collection of phone records of American citizens.
Hmm. "We stepped up and fixed all the problems, so there is no need to continue the debate." I guess at face value it's kind of nice to say, but it doesn't carry a lot of weight since it's not an official statement. The current AG spokesperson is quoted, "I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed." It doesn't exactly contradict striking a deal, but it doesn't sound very open to doing so.
> informal discussions of... a plea bargain in which Snowden returns to the United States, pleads guilty to one felony count and receives a prison sentence of three to five years in exchange for full cooperation with the government.
Seems problematic. What is "full cooperation" -- enumerating all docs? What if they say they don't believe him and the deal is off? Does he have to agree to discrediting himself in order to get people to put less stock in anything attributed to the "Snowden disclosures"? Publicly thank them for the aforementioned policy changes and shed tears saying it's exactly what he set out to do -- we can stop pushing for more change?
What is "full cooperation" -- enumerating all docs?
Gag order I imagine. As it stands, the masses don't really understand what's happening. Put him on Colbert's Late Show and make jokes about what's really happening in front of millions of viewers - you've got a platform for converting people. The court jesters [1] like Stephen Colbert and John Oliver can make deep cuts while avoiding reprimand. Oliver knows this.
> "We stepped up and fixed all the problems, so there is no need to continue the debate."
Interesting take. When I read Holder's quotes, “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate”, I got the sense he was acknowledging progress we'd made as a society. He didn't seem to imply the debates or reforms were over though.
Well, it's a cynical take, influenced by my cynical (and, admittedly, kind of ignorant) view of the USA FREEDOM Act, which I presume is a major part of the "different place" Holder is referring to. In many ways its purpose is by definition to bring us back to the same place by restoring expired laws. People like natsec whistleblowers, ACLU, and EFF don't seem to think the passed version does much -- a small symbolic victory at best. Personally I worry the gov't and media's labeling it as "reform" will contribute to fading interest in the public. Holder could be nudging that propaganda here. So yeah, I am reading too much into what he said, but that's sort of my reasoning for it.
To be fair, I am not sure how I would define meaningful reform, but I think it needs to do more than USA FREEDOM. I could be missing some other progress, too?
Snowden is in Russia right now. Chances of him coming back to US in the current climate are next to nil. That's probably part of why they don't mind putting this on the table - Snowden can't take it.
Makes you wonder, does the USG feel a sense of relief now that all this mass-surveillance stuff is out there and the general public doesn't care that much?