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

111–120 of 241 posts

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

#111

Post by logfromblammo »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #99
peterkelly wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? See the first link in my comment. > In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that…

>So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. If you're that keen to be covered by the United States Constitution, you can always petition for statehood; there's a procedure right there in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Go to it, and good luck!

A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the majority of the clauses that establish rights actually forbid the U.S. federal government from performing certain actions, period, rather than forbid it from performing those actions or not, conditional on citizenship.

The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. The U.S. government must always get a warrant, regardless of borders.

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) [0] established precedent stating otherwise, but I agree with Brennan's dissent and Stevens' concurrence. The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights.

Of course, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., those protections are unenforceable in practice regardless, because the target likely cannot access any court that might be able to grant relief. It might be interesting for a foreign national to ask to enter the U.S. for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances against the U.S. in a U.S. court.

A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. That would be a double-edged sword, of course. It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. (I'm thinking specifically about intellectual property suits.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...

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

#112

Post by kenko »

tptacek wrote: post #59
tvon wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly do not know who to believe, but a counter to the report: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...

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 it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport"

But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).

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

#113

Post by ajcarpy2005 »

mozumder wrote: post #33
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

What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?

haha, I see a redflag for DoubleSpeak. I believe the filters of citizens' communications refers to filtering/blocking of their Internet connections.

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

#114

Post by dragonwriter »

logfromblammo wrote: post #111
mzw_mzw wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. If you're that keen to be covered by the United States Constitution, you can always petition for statehood; there's a procedure right there in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Go to it, and good luck!

A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the majority of the clauses that establish rights actually forbid the U.S. federal government from performing certain actions, period, rather than forbid it from performing those actions or not, conditional on citizenship. The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. The U.S. government must always get a…

> The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere.

Even granting that, what is "reasonable" depends on a lot of other factors (both legal -- such as specific grants of power to Congress, and laws passed under such grants -- and factual), and the nature of world of multiple sovereign states and the grant of power to Congress to regulate interactions with them, and laws passed by Congress make surveillance of purely foreign material "reasonable" under circumstances where it would not be domestically.

> It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. I don't see how such a treaty can be reconciled with Article III; the treaty power does not extend to contravention of the Constitution.

> It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction.

US entities can already sue foreign persons for violations of US laws in foreign states territory in US courts to the extent that the US law at issue has extra-territorial application.

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

#115

Post by EdSharkey »

Cypher wrote: post #109

What good is a medal going to do? He needs to be president to sort this shit out.

What a lovely work of fiction it would be to envision a President Snowden. I think it's the one-in-a-million chance premises like that that make the best stories.

Alas, there's been too much two-minutes-hate, Emmanuel Goldstein-style demonization ginned up against Snowden. He'll never get a pardon, much less a medal or the presidency.

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

#116

Post by tptacek »

kenko wrote: post #112
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 it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport" But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things…

Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage.

You can simplify this whole point to:

Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.

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

#117

Post by JulienRbrt »

I am wondering, we always discuss about Snowden, OK he needs to be pardoned, but what about Assange... I would like to remind you that he (and WikiLeaks) revealed, as well, important documents about what do our governements and he's still stuck in an embassy in England...

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

#118

Post by Practicality »

Jtsummers wrote: post #95
Practicality wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I live near a military base, views against him are quite common here. The defense culture, in general, and those who view "security" [0] as the primary role of our government also condemn him. [0] This is a non-partisan view. I hear it from Democrats, Republicans, and some Libertarians (who hold more to the fiscal sense of modern libertarianism than the civil liberties sense, which is a shame). There's a large group…

Thanks for explaining. As jacalata pointed out I don't have much interaction with people with that point of view, hence why I have such a strong aversion to comments saying Americans feel that way.

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

#119

Post by imagist »

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…

> 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.

This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress.

> When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?

That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.

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

#120

Post by imagist »

dllthomas wrote: post #69
freehunter wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Constitution says something, it applies to everyone everywhere. The Constitution of the United States does not apply to people it applies to the government. It says nothing about "US citizens" or "foreign nationals". It restricts what the government can do. So if the fourth amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches applies here (which there seems to be some debate about), it would apply to ev…

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t... My understanding has it that in practice "the people" means roughly "all citizens and residents of the US", not all people anywhere. You can disagree with the courts over what the words mean, but do so deliberately.

America, where corporations are people but foreigners aren't.
Post reply on HN