White House Responds To 'Pardon Edward Snowden' Petition

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like the White House has shot down that petition asking for a full pardon for Edward Snowden.

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.
 
Let me translate:

"If we could, we would hunt down Edward Snowden, extradite him, give him a rigged trial for treason, and sentence him to life in prison or execution if he weren't hiding in Russia. He should accept that and come home to it."
 
Somehow I don't imagine him being given a fair trial if he were to come back to the US or decided to step foot in another country where they are willing to proceed with extradition. I don't necessarily agree with how he disseminated the information, but given the circumstances it does make sense that he behaved as he did. It is one thing to live in constant paranoid fear of the government based upon suspicion of their activities and another thing entirely to learn that the irrational paranoia was justified because they literally were engaging in that behavior.
 
1. Rigged trial? So you think the government controls what juries think? Interesting.
2. He did intentionally break the law.
3. We let him go scott free?... Then do we let all espionage go free? We then set a precedent that if you feel your doing the right thing then go ahead and break the law.
4. I would be interested in fighting for him and assisting him financially if he did return for trial. I would also think it would be interesting to see what a jury would think about all of this.
5. He released a mountain of information without reading it or verifying who he was hurting or getting killed. If he really cared (as much as he says) he wouldn't of let it out in that manner.
6. I do believe that he was distraught by what he found out about our government and he wanted to do something about it, but it does seem like he had this plan before he was hired. That concerns me. Who does he really represent? China? Russia? us?

This gets really complicated fast as he isn't all snow white. But he's not all evil either. So I can't be all for him and all against him. I'm "more" for him and "less" against him. But that is a case by case basis. If more information came out during a trial I might lean further one way or another.

It is suspicious who he ran too.
 
If I remember right, wasn't he being charged with items that would never see a court with a Jury? The only thing that awaits him is a Kangaroo court which will result in his execution or imprisonment for life.
 
So it would be like a military court? Like that cuba base we have?
 
if that is the case then I really don't know what he could do at this point.
 
Snowden is never coming back and as it seems that Europe won't allow him asylum either.
 
He would be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act. So no jury just swift government "justice".
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Somehow I don't imagine him being given a fair trial if he were to come back to the US or decided to step foot in another country where they are willing to proceed with extradition. I don't necessarily agree with how he disseminated the information, but given the circumstances it does make sense that he behaved as he did. It is one thing to live in constant paranoid fear of the government based upon suspicion of their activities and another thing entirely to learn that the irrational paranoia was justified because they literally were engaging in that behavior.
Click to expand...

There is NO reason NOT to give him a fair trail. They don't have to be unfair to convict him because he damn well did some very bad things.

or every bit piece of information that he released, that had something to do with the rights of Americans, there were 20 pieces that had nothing at all to do with them. If he had been more selective about what he took and gave away then things wouldn't be nearly so bad but he wasn't selective. He grabbed handfulls of everything and that is why he will be convicted if he returns.

Again, they don't have to lie, cheat, or bend the rules to convict him of his crimes which are many.

It's like someone claiming self defense while defending an innocent victim. It's a lot easier to sell if the guy hadn't killed six bystanders in doing so.

What's worse, he never ever once tried to go through any official channels. He isn't like William Binney who at least made a real effort to work from within the system to change what he thought was illegal. Ed just did an expedient drive by.

And this is why if Ed Snowden comes back he will be convicted while William Binney never was.

Snowden's "rights" do not justify his "wrongs".
 
d_stilgar said:
Let me translate:

"If we could, we would hunt down Edward Snowden, extradite him, give him a rigged trial for treason, and sentence him to life in prison or execution if he weren't hiding in Russia. He should accept that and come home to it."
Click to expand...

That is how I read it also.

Mac75 said:
So it would be like a military court? Like that cuba base we have?
Click to expand...

With this.
 
Snowden would be crazy to come back to the USA. But, saying that, I think he will be captured by US authorities at some point. Everyone makes mistakes and I imagine they're watching him like a hawk.
 
He did what he felt was the right thing to do: expose just a fraction of the BS the US government is doing behind the backs of its own citizens, and for that I find no fault with the guy. As for espionage, well, sorry, but if you're not some kind of Constitutional scholar then none of us really has any ground to stand on. From what I've seen and gathered over time, Snowden never directly leaked or passed on information to any government(al) agencies worldwide, none of them - the info he possessed was passed on to journalists from various places and there's some level of precedence for doing such things. Calling it outright espionage is just going a wee bit too far at this point since we as outsiders don't have anything to work with except what's known from news reports and the journalists.

It's all one big huge pile of shit, basically, but I'm glad at least someone had the balls to say "Ok, wait, what's going on here is pretty much 100% illegal, and even if I am a contractor for the US government, this needs to get out into the open..."

I would have done pretty much the same thing, and I know a lot of other people would too.

Enough's enough.
 
icpiper yes your right he did intentionally break the law.

And that was part of my point about how he released the data. Had he been very selective and only released something to verify that he wasn't lying about our programs I do think this would be a whistle-blower conversation.

But that isn't how he did it. Sadly he thought the guy stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy was a hero for releasing data without reading it as well.
 
If I were Snowden I wouldn't come back. Even if the government pardons him and the overwhelming Americans support him, there's just enough crazy lying around that'll do the Murican thing and kill him.

enhanced-25851-1404406047-41.jpg
 
What is the definition of a fair trial? Under the espionage act, the government simply needs to produce evidence that Edward leaked classified information, and then the trial is over. He does not get the opportunity to explain why he leaked information, or to try to argue that the programs he leaked where unconstitutional or should not have been classified; all of that is irrelevant under the espionage act and he will be barred from arguing that in front of a jury. The outcome of a trial is already a done deal.

The government's response to the petition is laughable. Others have tried to protest against the actions of the NSA and there was no place to raise those concerns. Congressmen either didn't care or didn't have the clearance to verify claims. How can anyone protest or have a public discourse about programs that are secret and classified from most policymakers?
 
By denying that traitor to return home he's getting his sentence freezing in some 3rd world hole.
 
Mac75 said:
1. Rigged trial? So you think the government controls what juries think? Interesting.
2. He did intentionally break the law.
3. We let him go scott free?... Then do we let all espionage go free? We then set a precedent that if you feel your doing the right thing then go ahead and break the law.
4. I would be interested in fighting for him and assisting him financially if he did return for trial. I would also think it would be interesting to see what a jury would think about all of this.
5. He released a mountain of information without reading it or verifying who he was hurting or getting killed. If he really cared (as much as he says) he wouldn't of let it out in that manner.
6. I do believe that he was distraught by what he found out about our government and he wanted to do something about it, but it does seem like he had this plan before he was hired. That concerns me. Who does he really represent? China? Russia? us?

This gets really complicated fast as he isn't all snow white. But he's not all evil either. So I can't be all for him and all against him. I'm "more" for him and "less" against him. But that is a case by case basis. If more information came out during a trial I might lean further one way or another.

It is suspicious who he ran too.
Click to expand...

This more then any of the rest. The real heroes of our country, the ones that really fought against injustices. Martin Luthur King and Rosa Parks are two. There are many others and I should be able to remember more of their names off the top of my head but I can't. But I do know why they are heroes. It's because they stood up, against great personal risk they stood up against what was wrong.

I can't put Ed Snowden in this same category. Some of you want to look at what he did in the same light I guess that's up to you, but I can't. I sure can't when I know all the things about his personal life that don't paint a picture of an upstanding guy but instead they paint a picture of a guy that is anything but upstanding. He's a low life and he's been playing you guys.

That's how I see it straight up. You can think he did more good then harm, you can delude yourselves if you wish. But that isn't the truth of it either cause in the final tally, all that has happened as a result of his theft, defection, and persistent efforts, is that the bulk meta-data program continues, and a new open acknowledge program of complete surveillance has been instituted where one did not previously exist, determined to protect against another Snowden.

The ends justify the means right?

The saying works both ways.
 
I would agree with the President's claim if, and only if, the following:

1) Snowden is guaranteed protective custody while awaiting trial, not solitary confinement.
2) Snowden is guaranteed an open criminal trial with a jury of his peers, not a confidential military trial.
3) Snowden's discovery requests are met without redacted information, or every count against redacted evidence is dropped.
 
Mac75 said:
1. Rigged trial? So you think the government controls what juries think? Interesting.
2. He did intentionally break the law.
3. We let him go scott free?... Then do we let all espionage go free? We then set a precedent that if you feel your doing the right thing then go ahead and break the law.
4. I would be interested in fighting for him and assisting him financially if he did return for trial. I would also think it would be interesting to see what a jury would think about all of this.
5. He released a mountain of information without reading it or verifying who he was hurting or getting killed. If he really cared (as much as he says) he wouldn't of let it out in that manner.
6. I do believe that he was distraught by what he found out about our government and he wanted to do something about it, but it does seem like he had this plan before he was hired. That concerns me. Who does he really represent? China? Russia? us?
Click to expand...

1. Rigged in that he wouldn't get a trial by jury of peers. It would be a court-martial or some other form of trial where the public never gets to know what happens.
2. He intentionally broke the law, by exposing how the government has been breaking the law without consequence or knowledge from the citizens it's charged to protect.
3. Pardons are granted by the president of the United States, who can grant them as he or she chooses. It's what pardons are for. No need to worry about precedent.
4. You are naive about how any return to the U.S. would end for him.
5. He read enough of the information to know what it was, and released just enough of it for the people he released it to to know that it wasn't fake. He chose a news source that he knew would be responsible in how they released and shared the information. He didn't just dump everything onto wikileaks.
6. I've watched his interviews. It seems that he discovered what was going on, realized that there was no way to tell anyone (the laws he broke also say he can't tell anyone that the government is breaking the law) and then secretly copied the files to be a whistleblower. The planning ahead that he did was to get himself out of the country because he rightly fears that he will be tortured and killed.
 
Mac75 said:
1. Rigged trial? So you think the government controls what juries think? Interesting.
Click to expand...

There are different kinds of trials. If Snowden were given an actual jury criminal trial rather than a confidential military/sedition trial I would be quite surprised.

2. He did intentionally break the law.
Click to expand...

He did. Civil disobedience is not exempt from consequences. Read MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail. Snowden should face trial and the consequences for is actions but only if he is assures a fair jury trial.

3. We let him go scott free?... Then do we let all espionage go free? We then set a precedent that if you feel your doing the right thing then go ahead and break the law.
Click to expand...

I already feel no obligation to the law if it forces me to act unjustly. We set this precedent nearly a century ago at Nuremberg that you have an obligation to refuse orders if they violate law.

4. I would be interested in fighting for him and assisting him financially if he did return for trial. I would also think it would be interesting to see what a jury would think about all of this.
Click to expand...

I'd donate in a heartbeat.

5. He released a mountain of information without reading it or verifying who he was hurting or getting killed. If he really cared (as much as he says) he wouldn't of let it out in that manner.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. He read every single document prior to release, and released in a controlled way. There was nothing "bulk" about the document leaks by Snowden. I think you're thinking of Julian Assange.

6. I do believe that he was distraught by what he found out about our government and he wanted to do something about it, but it does seem like he had this plan before he was hired. That concerns me. Who does he really represent? China? Russia? us?
Click to expand...

I don't see how notifying the public that their communications are being illegally intercepted served anybody other than the public.


It is suspicious who he ran too.
Click to expand...

I think he ran to the safest place, and took great care in announcing it so everybody would know if something went wrong. I also don't think that Putin would hesitate to hand him over if it served Putin's interest so Snowden isn't really all that safe.
 
Draktharbar said:
What is the definition of a fair trial? Under the espionage act, the government simply needs to produce evidence that Edward leaked classified information, and then the trial is over. He does not get the opportunity to explain why he leaked information, or to try to argue that the programs he leaked where unconstitutional or should not have been classified; all of that is irrelevant under the espionage act and he will be barred from arguing that in front of a jury. The outcome of a trial is already a done deal.

The government's response to the petition is laughable. Others have tried to protest against the actions of the NSA and there was no place to raise those concerns. Congressmen either didn't care or didn't have the clearance to verify claims. How can anyone protest or have a public discourse about programs that are secret and classified from most policymakers?
Click to expand...

True words.
 
Draktharbar said:
What is the definition of a fair trial? Under the espionage act, the government simply needs to produce evidence that Edward leaked classified information, and then the trial is over. He does not get the opportunity to explain why he leaked information, or to try to argue that the programs he leaked where unconstitutional or should not have been classified; all of that is irrelevant under the espionage act and he will be barred from arguing that in front of a jury. The outcome of a trial is already a done deal.

The government's response to the petition is laughable. Others have tried to protest against the actions of the NSA and there was no place to raise those concerns. Congressmen either didn't care or didn't have the clearance to verify claims. How can anyone protest or have a public discourse about programs that are secret and classified from most policymakers?
Click to expand...

Right, because Bradley manning didn't get a trial, and he was a Soldier and had a trial that lasted two months. Two months is a long trial for the military. Bradley didn't get to defend himself right?

Your comment is without merit, it doesn't stand up to reality. The nature of the charge in no way effects what kind of a trial he would receive. A trial is a trial and nothing prevents him from proper representation or the right if he wishes to defend himslef.
 
Nobody got killed because of Snowden. It was thoroughly examined and not his worst enemies can pin one death on him.
 
d_stilgar said:
Let me translate:

"If we could, we would hunt down Edward Snowden, extradite him, give him a rigged trial for treason, and sentence him to life in prison or execution if he weren't hiding in Russia. He should accept that and come home to it."
Click to expand...

Funny, that is exactly how I read that also.
 
I don't know Snowden well enough to be able to determine whether or not he fled to Russia because he was buddying up to Putin. I suspect that Russia was the first country that he could reasonably get to that would not immediately extradite him back to the US. I also suspect that the fact that Putin and the current administration are at odds with each other influenced that decision.

Snowden apparently felt that there were no reliable watchmen with whom he could discuss the information that he had uncovered. He decided to engage the media and under current law, that was illegal. He may not be able to provide justification for his actions given the nature of the laws he violated, which leads me to believe that any trial would be unfair because the laws themselves are flawed.

I am glad that as a result of his actions that we have finally had a chance to debate the behavior of the NSA in public. The whole fiasco has also raised legitimate questions about both the nature of the current surveillance state and the laws in place to protect/promote it. It may have been the more honorable thing for him to fall on his sword, so to speak, by releasing the documents then turning himself over to the authorities for punishment, but human nature is an interesting thing, especially when the instinct for self-preservation is involved.

As an aside, I think he is in fact dealing with the consequences of his actions. Hiding out in another country as the result of violating laws of questionable substance is a consequence. Never being able to set foot in the US or any country that will send him back to the US is a consequence.

I honestly don't consider him a hero. It really is a gray area. I am inclined to think that I would definitely consider him a hero if he had chosen to go to prison because the intent of his actions was noble. As it stands right now, I would like to thank him for kickstarting the public discourse on this issue, but I will withhold hero status until something compels me to change my mind.
 
TS clearance contracts are very clear.
Your going to see shit you don't agree with.
You promise not to talk about this shit forever and you get the job.
Sign here.
That's what it means to -> Serve
Bite that hand and the dog is going to have your day.
Don't make deals with the devil unless your willing to give up at least part of your soul.
 
Snowden should surrender right after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld surrender to the world court for their conviction on war crimes.
 
I feel bad for Snowden, he did what is right, but now he is pretty much wanted dead by government so can never go back to his country. Russia seems to be the only place that is nice enough to keep him, but problem is, for how long. Russia is not exactly a free country either, but the fact that he is safer than there in the US speaks volumes about how corrupt and evil the US government really is.

Reality is the government's was caught with their pants down in their corruption, and they don't want to change that, instead they want to punish the one that was nice enough to reveal this info to the people. Unfortunately I can't see anyone being brave enough to do this again, as the corruption probably runs even deeper now than it ever has.
 
panhead said:
Snowden should surrender right after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld surrender to the world court for their conviction on war crimes.
Click to expand...
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and dont forget Paul Wolfowitz -Rumsfeld assistant.
Whom primarily rewrote the Army's war fighting strategy right after 911.
Paul Wolfowitz's war fighting Think Tank sent us into perpetual war.
Before 911 we had a war fighting strategy that would have strengthened our forces through small regulated conflicts.
Instead we went back to WW2 and Vietnam war-fighting.
 
erexx said:
TS clearance contracts are very clear.
Your going to see shit you don't agree with.
You promise not to talk about this shit forever and you get the job.
Sign here.
That's what it means to -> Serve
Bite that hand and the dog is going to have your day.
Don't make deals with the devil unless your willing to give up at least part of your soul.
Click to expand...

It's "you're" not "your."
They don't tell you anything before you sign. He thought he was going to investigate terrorism, not comply with unconstitutional practices that nobody knew about, not even in the highest ranks of our government.
Serving isn't complying with a non-disclosure agreement.
Serving isn't blindly following authority, especially when that authority is corrupt.
So the human is biting a dog hand? I think you're combining/confusing different idioms.
So you're admitting that the NSA is the devil and that working for the government is literally selling your soul to them . . .
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I don't know Snowden well enough to be able to determine whether or not he fled to Russia because he was buddying up to Putin. I suspect that Russia was the first country that he could reasonably get to that would not immediately extradite him back to the US. I also suspect that the fact that Putin and the current administration are at odds with each other influenced that decision.
Click to expand...
He wasn't traveling *to* Russia. He was traveling *through* Russia on a transcontinental flight. The US yanked his passport so he couldn't leave and he languished on a bench for a few weeks until Russia granted him temporary asylum.

Russia likely granted him asylum in light of the deteriorating relations between our countries, but Snowden's circumstances that led him to Russia were not voluntary.
 
lollerwaffle said:
Nobody got killed because of Snowden. It was thoroughly examined and not his worst enemies can pin one death on him.
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about this stuff you wouldn't say anything like this.

I'll lay it out for you.

The people who would know, won't tell you, not openly. Here is why. If they acknowledged that something Snowden released got someone killed then they would be pointing it out, what it was that he released, the vulnerability that was being exploited that once closed led to a death. That's going to stay classified and they are not going to tell you whether it happened or not.

Besides, think it through.Intelligence work is a game, and information game. Each side works to gain information from others and vice verse. If someone tells you that I have been getting info from you via plan B, you are going to close plan B so I can't get this info anymore. Now exactly how am I supposed to directly relate this to someone dying later on in any credible way? "Oh man, Private George got blasted man, cause we can't listen in on XXX anymore. If that Snowden dude hadn't told the Smurfs and XXX George would still be alive man."

Do you see the issue? It's hard to play the game that way. But what you can point to is that a collection method has dried up. that a vulnerability we were exploiting isn't working any more. That someone we were able to keep tabs on we can't track any more. That we have to find another way, perhaps a riskier way to get that job done. And if someone get's killed because it all got harder or we lost insight on some people, well that is sometimes hard to pin down. But it isn't hard to know things just got harder, that things that worked don't work anymore. That is cut and dried, simple, easy.

Maybe that's easier for you to get a handle on.
 
d_stilgar said:
Let me translate:

"If we could, we would hunt down Edward Snowden, extradite him, give him a rigged trial for treason, and sentence him to life in prison or execution if he weren't hiding in Russia. He should accept that and come home to it."
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up. The government doesn't want the citizenry to know what it's doing. Just keep going to the polls and listen to the politicians bicker, all while the world "progresses" to its inevitable conclusion.
 
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I would add bold, but this is a tough task on a Kyocera Brigadiee
 
d_stilgar said:
It's "you're" not "your."
They don't tell you anything before you sign. He thought he was going to investigate terrorism, not comply with unconstitutional practices that nobody knew about, not even in the highest ranks of our government.
Serving isn't complying with a non-disclosure agreement.
Serving isn't blindly following authority, especially when that authority is corrupt.
So the human is biting a dog hand? I think you're combining/confusing different idioms.
So you're admitting that the NSA is the devil and that working for the government is literally selling your soul to them . . .
Click to expand...
I agree and you are assuming a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top