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

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#261

Post by dllthomas »

eli wrote: post #79
bbatsell wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument. You should know that he would be legally barred from doing so under an Espionage Act prosecution. https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-tr... https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-snowden...

Well, I believe that's based on a hypothetical of how a judge might rule if Snowden attempts that defense. But more importantly, I don't think that's wrong. "I had a good reason" isn't a defense against the charges since intent is not a factor in this crime. I don't think you're generally allowed to argue for jury nullification, which is what this would amount to. (If the government could prove he intended to cause h…

"And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal."

I want that situation. I want that situation very badly.

People are generally predisposed to think that the stuff they're working on is a good thing. If, despite that, someone decides it's so appalling it needs to be stopped, I want them to speak up. Even if they're occasionally wrong.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#262

Post by dllthomas »

_jal wrote: post #88
eli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the least, I think Clapper should be investigated for perjury over lying to Congress. But the fact that other criminal acts are going unpunished doesn't really have any bearing on Snowden's case. The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged.

"The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged." Nominally true, but this approaches the cliche about the rich and poor alike being banned from sleeping under bridges. So long as the law is unevenly enforced such that (for instance) Clapper is not targeted and Snowden is, the surveillance state retains the structural ability to frame the debate about itself, lie about what it does an…

Heck, we know they hacked the computers of those tasked with overseeing them.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#263

Post by venomsnake »

mortehu wrote: post #89
hueving wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

Which is sad. The damage Biden inflicted on US with the non circumvention provisions of the DMCA means he should be tried under high treason and not being vice president.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#264

Post by vacri »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #176
dragonwriter wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Why? Because most of the time it's celebrity endoresment - appeal to authority, without having authority. Why should I trust George Clooney's opinion on coffee let alone what he thinks about Darfur?

At least in Jolie's case, she's visited those places. Regardless of her celebrity (and entourage), she has more personal experience than I do. Exposure should at least count for something, even if you have to take resulting comments with a grain of salt due to other factors.

I imagine Clooney's also had more access to finer coffee than myself, but I can safely assume that adverts aren't expressing personal opinions in the slightest. :)

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#265

Post by gamerdonkey »

3327 wrote: post #247
austinhutch wrote: post #6

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

I would not. I am American and despite the fact that what I think he did was right, the manner he did it was wrong. Domestic Spying is NOT OK. International Spying IS OK. He released dozens of files regarding international spying. Setting US efforts back dozens of years, endangering lives of US assets. Sorry to say but that is treason. Treason has a price.

Sadly, things are not often so cut and dry.

What are you feelings about spying that is ostensibly international but nonetheless collects a potentially large, though unknowable, amount of intimate domestic communication? I ask because that is exactly the kind of thing that happens with the "Foreign Intelligence" programs Snowden leaked.

> [...] Section 702 of FISA Amendments Act of 2008, is labeled "Procedures For Targeting Certain Persons Outside The United States Other Than United States Persons." Going on name alone, that sounds like the opposite of a license for the NSA to collect private messages between Americans.

> Not necessarily.

> [...]

> Through those spying programs, it is possible that American-to-American email could hit an overseas server and be pulled into NSA databases even though those emails are not the target of NSA searches. The law does not prohibit this kind of "incidental" collection of Americans’ communications, as long as it was part of an otherwise valid collection of non-Americans’ information, said Stephen Vladeck, American University national security law professor.

> Government reports, leaks and a scathing 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion offer more proof that the NSA cannot separate out communications between Americans from the emails involving a foreigner. "NSA’s knowing acquisition of tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications through its Upstream collection is a cause of concern for the court," wrote FISC Judge John D. Bates in the declassified opinion.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/...

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#266

Post by dllthomas »

jonnybgood wrote: post #243
leohutson wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe that giving the state these powers helps reduce the risk of terrorism? Can you point to an attack that has been prevented by information gained through torture? Obviously since the number of deaths caused by terrorism thus far is tiny, for terrorism to justify these actions that you agree would otherwise be unconscionable, the only conclusion you could make is that the security apparatus must be su…

> Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year? I never understood these kind of questions. Don't you think there's a difference between premeditated murder and accidental death? You can't prevent people from accidentally doing stupid things and mishaps, you can only minimize it. Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented.

"Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented."

If you can prevent it at an acceptable cost, by all means prevent it. I'm skeptical that you'll hit you'll hit 100% regardless of what you do, and the cost can easily come too high for marginal reductions.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#267

Post by dllthomas »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #195
dragonwriter wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's easier to retaliate when the target lives just next to you than in another country. But (unless Snowden starts messing with the government again) more likely than intentional government-sponsored execution (er, "accident") is that some nutjob (er, "patriot") will take matters into their own hands. And that is vastly more likely when you're in the country and not abroad.

Actually, it might very well be easier (in many senses) for the US military to kill someone overseas than domestically.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#268

Post by dllthomas »

snowwrestler wrote: post #87
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…

Presidential pardons stick because of double jeopardy. If Snowden is pardoned for the crimes for which he has been indicted, he cannot be indicted for them again. If Obama pardoned Snowden on his last day in office (as I hope he does), Snowden could come home. If murder is the concern, Snowden will not be safe anywhere. Do you think that the CIA doesn't have people in Moscow?

I don't think double jeopardy enters into it. You can't prosecute someone for something they've been pardoned of, even if they were never indicted before (and pardons without indictment have happened plenty of times).

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#269

Post by dllthomas »

mason240 wrote: post #76
MrZongle2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting at least until 2020.

Rand Paul might pardon him.

If he promises that, I'll hold my nose and hand him money.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#270

Post by dllthomas »

CalRobert wrote: post #117

Why should he want to come to the US? It has little if anything to offer him. Better to make a home in Germany or Iceland which are all more likely to respect individual privacy than the US, and are lovely places in their own right.

It would be nice if he could see his family again, and moving one person is much cheaper than moving many.
Post reply on HN