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

151–160 of 241 posts

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

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

logfromblammo wrote: post #148
dragonwriter wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

But the courts argument is irrelevant to that. To the extent that the US Constitutional rights (or other rights under US law) extend to foreign nationals in foreign territory, the existence of a US court on their soil is irrelevant to such protection, it has no effect either way. So the whole court thing was a non sequitur.

> 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.

That might be a practical concern, but it is irrelevant to the actual legal concern, which is that it is well-established law that many protections of the US Constitution do not, in fact, apply to foreign persons outside of the US in the same way as they apply either to US citizens or to persons within the US (some don't apply at all, and even for those that do, the differences in factual circumstance between US and foreign jurisdiction and the fact that the US government has express granted powers in governing relations with foreign nations changes how they apply), and that, in fact, to be protected by those rights in the same way as would be the case for those within the US, the states they were in would, contrary to your argument, need to become part of the United States.

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

#152

Post by DogPawHat »

JulienRbrt wrote: post #117

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...

I think what needs to happen there is that the US needs to promise not to extradite him in exchange for him surrendering to the Swedish authorities for the rape claims. I don't believe he should be extradited to the US to be incarcerated under criminally draconian anti-whistle blower; I do believe that he has to submit to a fair trial after being legitimately charged with a unambiguously horrific crime. Assuming (and I believe this is the most likely seniario given the info I have) that the Swedish prosecution is acting in good faith and believe that they have a legitimate case, the US refusal to rule out extradition is, quite frankly, obstructing real justice for the parties to the Swedish case. Dealing with rape cases is far more important than grudges against Wikileaks.

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

#153

Post by pbarnes_1 »

JulienRbrt wrote: post #117

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...

Assange is an alleged rapist. Also kind of a dick. So people have less sympathy for him.

People like Snowden 'cause he seems like a nice guy who genuinely believes in what he says.

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

#154

Post by stouset »

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…

Snowden has only leaked information to the press, so they could determine what is newsworthy and relevant to the American people.

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

#155

Post by drivingmenuts »

peterkelly wrote: post #39
mozumder wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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…

> 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.

As I see it, that is exactly as it should be. Just as you are not subject to American law, except when you are in America or the provisions of a treaty, you should also not be protected by it, except when you are in America, etc. etc.

> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections.

Those protections that you may have derive from your own government and your own set of laws and the treaties made within that framework. You want to be protected by the laws of the United States of America, then be a citizen, with all the duties and responsibilities thereof.

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

#156

Post by ScottBurson »

tptacek wrote: post #116
kenko wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador

I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

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

#157

Post by mzw_mzw »

freehunter wrote: post #144
mzw_mzw wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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 brings their own biases whether consciously or not, and b) people who already disagree will not cooperate with that authority voluntarily, and c) the authority has no actual power in a democratic polity anyway. You can't arrest the other side, you can't put them in camps, you can't fine them. All you can do is yell insults at them, and if they don't care what you think, you are effectively powerless -- and obviously powerless to anyone watching.

Your only option in a democratic society is to have faith in the truth, plainly and calmly and repeatedly and respectfully spoken. When the other side comes at you with illogical nonsense, don't get angry; look at it as an opportunity to educate the onlookers, an opportunity that the other side has generously given you. And take that opportunity as often as they foolishly provide it to you.

And yes, one can be cynical and believe that the truth doesn't always win out. But suppression of lies either ends up in the fascist state you're trying to prevent, or eventually collapses in on itself and creates an even worse reaction. In an open society, the fascists are a couple of losers in basements complaining to themselves while the world moves past them. In an increasingly closed society such as the one we live in now, they become the brave rebels fighting the Establishment. Don't let them be the brave rebels.

Thanks for the opportunity to express these thoughts.

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

#158

Post by dllthomas »

imagist wrote: post #120
dllthomas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cute (and upvoted for humor).

The question is not whether foreigners are people, but whether they are a part of "the people", usually taken to mean "the people of the United States" - which is the context in which "the people" first appears.

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

#159

Post by Grishnakh »

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).

You're obviously hanging around only certain groups of people, and not reading message boards filled with pro-authoritarian people. Go to any message board with right-wingers and you'll see him denounced as a traitor. HN is simply not the place where you're going to see this.

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

#160

Post by dllthomas »

freehunter wrote: post #86
dllthomas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is an excellent article! I actually learned quite a bit from that, thank you. The main take-away that I had is that the courts generally uphold "the people" to mean "citizens", but there are some strong divisions on that and the case is far from settled. At the very least I agree with Harvard's opinion that this judgement cannot hold true to all instances of the the phrase "the people" without massively undoing…

To be honest, I've not given the article I linked a careful read.

My understanding is that it's entirely uncontroversial (as a question of "is" rather than "ought") that those who are neither US citizens nor US residents, while also not present in the US, are not afforded the protections in the Constitution given to "the people". It is also entirely uncontroversial that they do apply (in sometimes disputed form) to American citizens in the US (and probably also while abroad), and that they usually apply to long-term US legal residents present in the US. Some other points on those spectra are less certain (especially to me).

Post reply on HN