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

141–150 of 241 posts

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

#141

Post by rhino369 »

freehunter wrote: post #78
NoGravitas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you expand on your reasoning here?

I can on his behalf, because I understand where he's coming from (though I don't agree with the conclusion). I've actually heard this argument a number of times before. Obviously I'm not speaking for him, just my interpretation of where he's coming from. Snowden revealed the things the NSA was doing that he believed to be illegal. The government agreed that what the NSA was doing was illegal, but no one really knew a…

I think a more accurate description of it is: NSA was acting under the assumption that it was acting legally. The main criticism thrown at metadata collection was that it was a 4th amendment violation. However, a straight forward look at US Supreme Court caselaw shows that it isn't a 4th Amendment violation. The NSA's interpretation was correct.

What they overlooked was that the patriot act section 215, which they relied on for power to ask for metadata records, only allowed to them data related to an investigation. But they were preemptively getting all meta data totally unrelated to any investigation.

So they created a new law to allow the NSA to collect targeted metadata. Which some privacy proponents believe is just as bad, but it's definitely more limited than what the NSA was doing before.

It was never reasonable to believe that the NSA couldn't ever get your meta data. Police can get it for regular investigations too. They just can't get everyone's for no reason.

IMO Snowden ended the bulk collection.

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

#142

Post by Practicality »

rhino369 wrote: post #130
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).

He leaked classified information beyond what he needed to expose illegal programs. Most of his purpose was to expose programs he had an ideological problem with. I don't believe that is a good enough reason to leak classified information. Edward Snowden isn't an elected official. It wasn't his job to decide which US policies he agrees with. Government can't function if low level employees take it upon themselves to r…

Are you replying to the right comment? Or are trying to give yourself as a datapoint of an American against Snowden?

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

#143

Post by kafkaesq »

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 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 the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." The Committee's attempt to get us to believe otherwise in Snowden's case (along with the gratuitous phrase, "washed out") is a blatant attempt at semantic and psychological manipulation.

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

#144

Post by freehunter »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #126
freehunter wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it happens further back than that. If you pretend that all opinions are equally important, if you legitimize provably wrong opinions just for the sake of "teaching the controversy" or "hearing both sides of the argument", you teach people that it's okay to be ignorant, that it's okay to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the facts when they're presented. Donald Trump is what happens when you tell someone…

>Either you continue to listen to them, thereby legitimizing their point of view, or you say they're crazy and move on with your life. And they get pissed off at being called crazy, and elect Donald Trump as President. So that didn't work out so well for you. >We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation. "Shutting down" pe…

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.

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

#145

Post by logfromblammo »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #131
logfromblammo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Are any other nations obligated to follow this principle as well, or just the United States? >A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish…

Philosophy and politics do not always intersect in convenient places. The only law that all nations must currently obey is "might makes right". In taking the position that the U.S. may break its own laws whenever following them would be too inconvenient, the Supreme Court implicitly says that the rule of law is more of a guideline, really.

They apparently have not plumbed the deeper meanings of "wherever you go, there you are".

Why, indeed? The foreign state might desire it so that U.S. agents could not act with such impunity against its subjects, but what would be in it for the U.S.? Like any other treaty, that would be a point for negotiation.

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

#146

Post by hsod »

imagist wrote: post #119
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…

> 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 h…

> 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.

I'm not a lawyer, but it could perhaps be an affirmative defense [0].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

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

#147

Post by freehunter »

rhino369 wrote: post #122
freehunter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some things it's not worth arguing because the facts have already been well presented and at this point anyone arguing to the contrary has deliberately chosen to ignore those facts. Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Climate change is not real. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. JFK was killed by a magic bullet. The Holocaust never happened. Snowden is a terrorist and a treasonous traitor. Does anyone really st…

You are conflating fact and opinion. Someone's opinion on Snowden isn't necessarily based on facts. You can be objectively wrong about a fact, but you can't be objective wrong about an opinion. >You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps. Sure I can. Snowden could have leaked one single document that would blow…

I believe opinions do have to be based on fact. That's the difference between opinion and faith. People have faith that God exists, even if they don't have proof. But opinions are really just your interpretation of the facts you're presented with. Opinions change as you get new facts, faith persists even in the face of facts. If you believe something even though fact says otherwise, that is not an opinion. It's faith.

And yeah, it's fine to believe that Snowden went too far while also believing the NSA went too far. But you specifically are not arguing against what I said. I said "you can't believe Snowden is a traitor...", you said "yes I can", and then went on to say "but I don't think he's a traitor". So... anyway.

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

#148

Post by logfromblammo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #137
logfromblammo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to actually enforce such a judgment would either require a treaty or that the defendant or defendant's property enter U.S. territory. I don't see how Article III would prevent the establishment of a U.S. District Court outside the territory of the U.S. There is no distinction there that makes the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington any more or less legal than a theoretical U.S. Distr…

> I don't see how Article III would prevent the establishment of a U.S. District Court outside the territory of the U.S. It wouldn't, it would prevent something other than an Article III court from being established by treaty (and anything established by treaty would not be an Article III court.) Congress can establish, and has established Article III courts outside of the US (notably, the U.S. Court for China.) Not,…

That's splitting hairs, in my opinion. There is a distinction possible between "established by treaty" and "established by an Act of Congress pursuant to a treaty", but I didn't think it was necessary to make it upthread.

My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution. The key question is how to make the agents of the U.S. obey U.S. laws when outside of U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and there are many possible answers that do not involve extending U.S. territorial jurisdiction beyond its current bounds.

If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense. The suit could further be impeded by using immigration laws against the plaintiff, possibly impeding discovery or appearances. Retaining a local attorney would be de facto required rather than optional, and hourly rates might combine with currency exchange rates and national economies to ensure that the price tag is simply too high.

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

#149

Post by kbenson »

DougWebb wrote: post #106
rayiner wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal force.

Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. It's important to keep in mind the spirit of these historical documents and how that spirit can be applied today, but it's also important to remember that these are imperfect documents from an imperfect time and that they can't be treated as gospel. Even the founding fa…

> Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then.

Different people involved with the writing of that document had different ideas, and there were many drafts, and it was a creation of compromise. That it was left as open as it was, when prior revisions had specific clauses critical of the slave trade removed[1], is a testament to how contentious it was. That it was still used as later evidence for the abolition of slavery is to the credit of those that fought for a more inclusive wording. That it didn't include specific reference to women... well yeah, that sucks, but at least you can argue later that "man" was meant in the sense of (or should be interpreted as) "humanity".

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slav...

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

#150

Post by tptacek »

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…

I disagree with you on these particulars. But, overall, I feel like both sides are pulling a little bit too hard on the rope in this particular game of tug-of-war. Of course, I agree that House Intelligence is stretching as far as they can to portray Snowden in the worst possible light.
Post reply on HN