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

71–80 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#71

Post by gojomo »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #32
bitwarrior wrote: post #9

Only a presidential pardon will really suffice to come home without threat of arrest. It may very well happen posthumously, but that of course wouldn't be too useful to him by then.

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.

"…won't come from the current occupant of the White House…"

Are you sure? In their final days in office, lame-duck Presidents can (and do) use their pardon powers in ways that would be politically-unthinkable at any other time.

A total pardon would be very hard – a potentially dangerous precedent, even, for discipline in the security agencies.

But perhaps a pardon could be creatively crafted for all acts except some token offense with a smallish (2-4 year) maximum incarceration.

Without an unambiguous and expansive public pardon, if I were Snowden, I'd be somewhat suspicious of other offers from the DoJ. They might find a way to nullify the offer, or find something else outside the agreement to prosecute.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

tosseraccount wrote: post #60
coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this treason? Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason? Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...

He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. The prosecution can present their evidence.

> He should be allowed to testify and defend himself.

He's not. https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-tr...

> If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant—and are therefore inadmissible in court.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#73

Post by shit_parade2 »

rosser wrote: post #43
shit_parade2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And bad is brother of worse. Slogans are easy, what's hard is recognizing the difference between political theater and meaningful change. America is tumbling into the abyss of tyranny and people celebrate.

I'm not saying "Yay tyranny!" and to characterize my position thusly is, frankly, shitty discourse. I'm saying, "Ooh, look: teeny, tiny step back from the level of tyranny we had yesterday. Nice!" I would hope anyone who hates tyranny would see merit in that. Now, yes, if that's all we get, then being pissed and — more importantly, doing something about it — is warranted. But I choose to look at this as a first step,…

When you celebrate political theater that reaffirms the status quo with some window dressing you are essentially saying "yay, tyranny".

Dismissing criticism with a flippant "perfect is the enemy of the good" is lazy and thoughtless.

The government has shown no interest in curtailing the vast surveillance apparatus it has built, nor does it show interest in investigating its own abuses of such power.

When people praise such drivel as the freedom act it only sets us all back on the road to tyranny. So yeah, your perspective is detrimental to improving the dire circumstances we find ourselves.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#74

Post by sneak »

Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers".

A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou (the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him had he made an even bigger issue out of it.

The people who should be supporting rigorous checks on government authority and overstep simply aren't; the system is out of control and punishes those who speak up about illegal activity. He did what any reasonable person would have done in his situation when confronted with a massive criminal conspiracy.

A plea deal would allow the government to taint his actions, which were nothing short of heroic.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#75

Post by rhino369 »

marssaxman wrote: post #20
tosser-004 wrote: post #16

Snowmen did two things: 1. Exposed the tools and techniques of domestic surveillance. 2. Exposed the tools and techniques of foreign surveillance. The idea of not prosecuting Snowden seems to focus on the commendable exposure of the full extent of the domestic program. I just don't see how one can ignore his exposure of the perfectly legal foreign intelligence gathering.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

And people with security clearance shouldn't get to individually determine what is right by their own moral code.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#76

Post by mason240 »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #32
bitwarrior wrote: post #9

Only a presidential pardon will really suffice to come home without threat of arrest. It may very well happen posthumously, but that of course wouldn't be too useful to him by then.

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.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#77

Post by rosser »

shit_parade2 wrote: post #73
rosser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying "Yay tyranny!" and to characterize my position thusly is, frankly, shitty discourse. I'm saying, "Ooh, look: teeny, tiny step back from the level of tyranny we had yesterday. Nice!" I would hope anyone who hates tyranny would see merit in that. Now, yes, if that's all we get, then being pissed and — more importantly, doing something about it — is warranted. But I choose to look at this as a first step,…

When you celebrate political theater that reaffirms the status quo with some window dressing you are essentially saying "yay, tyranny". Dismissing criticism with a flippant "perfect is the enemy of the good" is lazy and thoughtless. The government has shown no interest in curtailing the vast surveillance apparatus it has built, nor does it show interest in investigating its own abuses of such power. When people prais…

If all I'd said was the quip you quoted, your position might have merit. Instead, you're selectively quoting my rather measured comment and calling me "lazy and thoughtless".

Thanks.

EDIT: You know what I think has people the most pissed off in all of this? That their illusions about America having been a particularly "free" country in the first place are being shattered.

I'm reminded of nothing quite so much as the virulence I've seen in former, incredibly ardent Obama supporters, when they realized how much of a tool he actually was.

Those of us who knew he was a tool from the beginning? Not so pissed when his true colors came out.

(And, no, I'm not a Republican, nor a Libertarian. I just realized a long time ago how corrupt the American political process is, and engage with it with that principle in mind.)

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#79

Post by eli »

bbatsell wrote: post #45
eli wrote: post #11

Perhaps a minority opinion, but I believe the NSA vastly overstepped and that they need to be reined in (much further than what the USA Freedom Act contains)... but also that Snowden probably should face charges. Snowden is charged with "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," which -- I think sensibly -- is illegal even if the unauthorized person is a r…

> 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 harm I imagine there would be even more charges against him.) 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 assume if there was a sentencing hearing, he'd be allowed to make a case for leniency based on why he did it.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#80

Post by derefr »

themeek wrote: post #50
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.

Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.

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 until you meet people on both sides of such a dividing line that you realize: propaganda is never aimed at "converting" people who know even the slightest thing about an issue, people who already have any stance at all. Instead, it's aimed at the mass of people who care little enough about an issue, people who are far enough away from the issue, that they'll trust the first source of "facts" about it they see, and then lose interest in finding out more.

Post reply on HN