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

Let Snowden Come Home

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#161

Post by smileysteve »

tosseraccount wrote: post #47

Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents? Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them? Isn't this treason? Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

> Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. > If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

Nobody (not even him) questions whether he violated the laws as they were written, but the concept of whistleblowing suggests that these laws were knowingly violated to present unlawful laws and actions.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#162

Post by ThomPete »

dragonwriter wrote: post #153
josu wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>legal foreign spying I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound right.

US law does not prohibit US intelligence services from spying on foreign countries. Quite the opposite. So, from a US perspective, NSA foreign intelligence gathering (specifically SIGINT gathering, its whole mandate) is, generally speaking, legal.

It's legal in the US not in the country its done to.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#163

Post by themeek »

onewaystreet wrote: post #152
yodsanklai wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?

Could you unpack how you mean that voters have basically okayed torture, rendition, indiscriminate drone targeting (or use in general), and mass surveillance?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#164

Post by NeutronBoy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #99
geophile wrote: post #81

As a practical matter, he can't come home. Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward. Put yourself in Snowden's s…

> Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The President has the Constitutional power to issue pardons, it does not grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or anyone else for that matter) power to retract them. > The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. Not to the extent that the new one…

> To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise) if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.

If it happens outside the United States, there's plausible deniability. If it happens in the US, there'll be far more scrutiny.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#165

Post by derefr »

themeek wrote: post #90
derefr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a similar bubble in the PRC: if you talk to someone inside it, they know all about Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the recent Hong Kong protests, etc. Whereas if you talk to someone outside of it, they'll tell you the Chinese government is a beloved-to-neutral entity (like the Queen of England, a bit) in the eyes of the populace, and that American terrorism is responsible for most-any Chinese civil unrest. It isn't…

Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.

Note that I was talking about the information bubble within China, affecting Chinese citizens. The people within it are immune to Chinese government propaganda; the people outside of it (most of the rural population, for starters) are affected by the propaganda.

The Chinese government doesn't care to attempt to change what Americans think about China; they know they won't be able to convince them of anything after so many other sources have already told them this or that thing to believe. So, to Americans, China is a propaganda machine, and China is fine with that. On the other hand, this means Americans never really get to hear what China is telling the Chinese about America, because they don't bother to publish that outside of their borders.

I guess there are three layers to any information bubble, then: at the core, there are informed citizens who both know the propaganda and have facts to reject it; surrounding that, there is a larger group of uninformed propaganda-influenced citizens; and on the outside, there are foreigners, who don't even know what a given country's propaganda says, only that it exists.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#166

Post by tallerholler »

yodsanklai wrote: post #139
tzs wrote: post #130

There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is supposed to be doing). The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald and Binney admit this. See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly…

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

> For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right.

Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of others.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#167

Post by mortehu »

gertef wrote: post #122
mortehu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are whistleblowers allowed to blow their whistle to anyone? US has several whistleblower protection laws[1], but it seems to me that if you want protection from the law, you should report to the correct instances first, and then escalate from there. From Wikipedia: > If the information that is being reported is classified, then the recipient must have a need-to-know and the recipient must hold a security clearance. 1…

When you are blowing the whistle on the President of the United States, who do you escalate to?

Isn't this what the Watergate scandal was about?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#168

Post by krylon »

dmfdmf wrote: post #92
serve_yay wrote: post #12

If I were him I wouldn't do it, even if some people said it would be OK. I mean he can't seriously trust the US government ever again, it would just be ridiculous.

I agree. They would lie to get him home and if the government reneged on an agreement most Americans wouldn't really care so he would be doomed. I think political asylum in a Western European country would be his best option now. Hopefully Germany steps up and does this as I thought they were seriously considering doing so when his Russian visa was expiring but were pressure by the US not to help him.

The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well, at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek asylum there.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#169

Post by eli »

themeek wrote: post #114
eli wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the trial do you think would be unfair? You can read the indictment here http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...

In the history of Espionage Act cases - the Espionage Act being a wartime temporary restriction of normal constitutional proceedings that survived past its wartime statute - excludes the possibility of arguing a whistleblower case, which is what Snowden would want in this case to argue. It's important to note that Snowden did not disclose these documents - he brought them to journalists, who then worked with the USG…

Regardless of how long ago the law was passed, it intuitively makes sense that it's illegal to publicly disclose national security secrets.

This talk of the history of the Espionage Act feels like a lot of hand waving. You make it sound like the government cherrypicked and misapplied some old law in order to stymie Snowden's defense. I don't believe there ever was (nor ever will be) a scenario where leaking national security documents to the press is protected as whistleblowing. This is not specific to the Espionage Act, I don't think "yes I did it, but it was for the greater good of society" is typically a valid defense argument in any criminal case.

(And it's offtopic but I disagree with your characterization of the Lavabit case. Lavabit wasn't on trial; they were served with a valid wiretap order that was signed by a regular non-secret non-FISA court judge and based on reasonable evidence. That's how it's supposed to work. I wish all national security cases were pursued that way.)

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#170

Post by soperj »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on board.

> I've always hated how celebrities join up causes Why? I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the fact that people who happen to be famous also advocate for causes they care about?

Because of idiots like Jenny McCarthy who advocate things like not using Vaccines for one.
Post reply on HN