Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 241 posts

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#161

Post by natmaster »

tzs wrote: post #102
peterkelly wrote: post #10

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... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s

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 co…

You shouldn't take oaths you can't keep. Taking both led him to lie, so no matter what he did he was violating his oath.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#165

Post by wutbrodo »

Practicality wrote: post #53
saynsedit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Americans sleep when they hear 90% of drone attack deaths are civilians: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp... But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation. It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.

Who are these generic Americans that think that Snowden should be condemned? Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few. I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).

> Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few.

This is an enormously basic fallacy. I was born and raised in the US and have spent a quarter century of life here, so I think it's fair to say "I know quite a few" Americans. But I would think it beyond insane to claim that my sample is useful for statements like "I know a lot of Americans and none feel this way. Who are they?". I also don't know any Trump supporters, any single parents, any heroin addicts, any cardiosurgeons, any farmers...is it really that difficult to believe that your sample of Americans isn't typical (despite its impressive size of "quite a few")?

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#167

Post by rrggrr »

fixermark wrote: post #67
RogtamBar wrote: post #16

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 so…

That theory is incompatible with the theory that he's actually a deep-cover CIA agent acting to very publicly and internationally embarrass their rival department---the NSA---whom they feel has gathered too much power and overstepped its Constitutional authority. Given the lack of evidence to support either theory, I choose to believe my conspiracy theory because I like it better. ;)

This is ridiculous. Read The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones and see if you still think there's even the remotest of possibilities this is true.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#168

Post by niccaluim »

vaadu wrote: post #121
tzs wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

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.

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

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#169

Post by zeveb »

kafkaesq wrote: post #143
tptacek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link. We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them: * The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he…

But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. The language I'm seeing says that "shin splints" refer specifically to what's called a "medial stress syndrome", which is different from (and of lesser degree) than an actual "stress fracture" like Snowden was diagnosed with. The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating t…

> The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X."

I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate.

Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact), and did make it through basic training. Washing out is generally indicative of one wanting to wash out: the military gives one the tools to either succeed or fail, as one wishes.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#170

Post by freehunter »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #157
freehunter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an important conversation, so I'd love to hear how you would handle the balance between not legitimizing their opinions and not forcing them to double down due to persecution. It's something that we, as a whole, seem to be failing at right now, and you're right, I don't have a good answer for it.

I'd handle that balance by dropping the "not legitimizing their opinions" part completely. There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly, the idea of "legitimizing" an opinion suggests that there is some group of people who have the authority to decide what opinions are okay to hold and what aren't. The problem is, a) there is no dispassionate authority you can refer to when we're talking about political issues; everyone…

Very well said. I think you're spot on that these folks aren't going to back down, but at least you can use the opportunity to explain the facts to other people who might be more willing o hear them. That's something we're missing during these discussions, we put a lot of emphasis on hearing both sides of the story, but not a lot on making sure everyone is aware of the facts, even if it hurts the rhetoric of one side of the argument. Fact checking during debates or roundtable discussions would go a long way towards rectifying that.

Thanks for the conversation, I do see your point and I agree. It's a no-win (or at least a only-partial-win) situation, but stating the facts and moving on is probably the most effective route, with the hope that the truth wins in the end.

They're just so damn annoying though!

Post reply on HN