Edward Snowden makes 'moral' case for presidential pardon

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/13/edward-snowden-why-barack-obama-should-grant-me-a-pardon

by Red_Tarsius • 10 years ago

295 159 10 years ago

lb1lf2• 10 years ago

Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon?

Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?

Or may a presidential pardon be reversed by any successor?

Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)

Hm. Off to Google I go; I find the concept somewhat intriguing.

tptacek7• 10 years ago

Yes, Snowden could be pardoned preemptively and expansively. That's how Ford pardoned Nixon.

No, a pardon could not be reversed by a future president (else: Ford could not truly have pardoned Nixon). There's SCOTUS precedent on both of these.

dllthomas2• 10 years ago

For clarity:

When you say "preemptively", you mean in advance of trial or even indictment. So far as I'm aware, the President cannot issue a pardon in advance of the crime.

s_q_b• 10 years ago

The President of the United States has the almost unqualified power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States, whether current or past, whether unindicted or convicted.

eastbayjake• 10 years ago

I came to comment that Snowden's request for pardon would presumably require a conviction, but on further research you're right that the president's pardon powers are "unlimited" -- even before legal proceedings have begun:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...

chiph• 10 years ago

President Obama could certainly pardon him without any qualifications. Which is not to say that some people in government wouldn't use their bureaucratic powers to harass him once he returns because they dislike what he did. For example, he might get the run-around when renewing his driver's license: "Oh, we need to see your prescription from your optician before we can put your eyeglass restriction on your license" (obviously not true but he won't get his license until he complies)

91bananas• 10 years ago

Which assumes someone at the DMV would be cooperative with another human. Slim chance of this

cloudjacker2• 10 years ago

Clintons pardon of Marc Rich happened on his last day in office.

I seem to recall the Wikipedia article speculating on the checks and balances available if Marc Rich actually did return to the US

You should check that out

yes_or_gnome• 10 years ago

Most pardons happen on the last day of office. Also, there are 'pocket vetos' where the acting president either doesn't want to outright veto to alienate his party or wants to see the election results before making a final decision. Either way, the President ends up vetoing or signing controversial bills in their last few months in office.

I seem to recall there was a president that forgot to veto some bills and the next president signed them. I think there was even a Supreme Court case that held the laws as constitutional.

giardini• 10 years ago

lb1lf: "how powerful is a presidential pardon?"

The president can pardon offenses of federal law. A state's governor can pardon offenses of that particular state's laws.

wmil• 10 years ago

It's incredibly powerful. The President can actually pardon entire classes of people. Carter issued a pardon to all draft dodgers. Ford had previously issued a limited pardon to some.

Obama could actually commute the sentences of everyone serving a sentence strictly for marijuana possession to time served.

rhino3692• 10 years ago

The only limit is that it doesn't apply to state crimes.

ceejayoz• 10 years ago

There's a Clancy novel built around the concept of a private spy agency with blank-check pardons for future actions from a President.

Kadin3• 10 years ago

That idea also figured heavily in one of the Jack Bauer TV shows. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of lawyers over beers about it once. As far as anyone could tell, there's no precedent to suggest that that it would work, but none to say that it wouldn't work, either. If the President was still in office and didn't object when you tried to invoke the advance-written pardon, it wouldn't seem as though anyone else would really have a place to interfere. The sticky situation would be if you got an advance pardon and then did something really heinous, such that the President who gave the original blank-check pardon objected on the basis that the conduct wasn't meant to be covered. You'd be on thin ice then.

dragonwriter5• 10 years ago

Out of curiosity - how powerful is a presidential pardon?

It is absolute.

Can a US president basically compose an edict saying 'This man is a bleeding hero and no branch of the US government will ever hold any of his actions related to incident X against him, now or in the future or else they shall snuff it!' and have this respected by his successors?

No, a pardon only affects criminal prosecutions and punishments -- to the extent covered by the text of the pardon, any future prosecution (or continuation of existing prosecution) is barred, and any criminal punishment (including and disabilities imposed by past conviction) is terminated. It doesn't affect any other action by the government, including any civil action that might be available in law.

Is it narrowly defined, eg. the pardonee (is that even a word) may not be prosecuted for his violation of US code such-and-such, section so-so committed on or before date DDMMYY? (Leaving any successor free to throw the book at him for anything not explicitly covered by the issued pardon?)

It can be as narrow or broad as the President chooses. About the only limit is that it is generally held (though this has never had occasion to be tested) that the Constitutional power of the pardon does not extend to prospective pardons (that is, a pardon cannot apply to offenses that occur after the pardon is issued.)

BrandonY• 10 years ago

One more limitation: a Presidential pardon doesn't affect state laws. If, for instance, Snowden had committed some crime against the state that he was residing in, the President would not forgive it.

lb1lf2• 10 years ago

-Thank you; most educational (And exotic, seeing as we don't have anything like it around here - being a monarchy would be a lot more fun (and less democratic!) if the head of state held more power)

As things go, it can be argued that the King holds less privilege than his minions; suffrage does not extend to him, for instance. The job undeniably carries some perks, though.

Good thing presidential pardons does not extend to future crimes - that would be - ahem - interesting. Very much so.

okwhatthe26• 10 years ago

If I am elected president, I will pardon every criminal on the planet, on the condition they seek rehabilitation in community centers. I will also unconstitutionally use my executive powers to close all prisons, dictate human rights-based technology to be made, and end executive power for all time.

aluhut• 10 years ago

I really hope he'll be able to leave Russia one day but if I were him, I wouldn't return to the US. Too many people with weird ideas in their heads.

pc865• 10 years ago

Not a trait confined to the United States by any stretch.

pm90• 10 years ago

That's true. I guess what the OP meant is that trait + being known in the US is what puts Snowden at greater risk in the US.

avn2109• 10 years ago

The difference is that Russian state security is protecting him from deportation/abduction/assassination (while also surveilling him) to make sure they get to keep sticking their finger in America's eye.

If he leaves the Eastern bloc you can bet that the boys in Fort Meade will make contingency plans to sabotage his brakes/get him on trumped-up charges for something else a la Assange/otherwise ruin his day.

tptacek7• 10 years ago

My guess is, his flight from the US is going to prevent his pardon. A pardon was a long shot no matter what, but a preemptive pardon of a fugitive would be without historical precedent.

finid4• 10 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton pardon a guy who ran to another country to avoid prosecution here (USA)?

tptacek7• 10 years ago

Yeah, Mark Rich. Ok, not without precedent. (Mark Rich cooperated and was pardoned conditionally, for whatever that's worth).

parenthesis• 10 years ago

Yes, Marc Rich.

nabla92• 10 years ago

Carter's pardon for draft dodgers was preemptive pardon for hundreas of thousands of fugitives, many of them who left the country. 50,000 never returned even after pardon.

There has been some other preemptive pardons: pardons for Richard Nixon and Caspar Weinberger at least.

tptacek7• 10 years ago

Preemptive pardons are definitely not without precedent.

cloudjacker2• 10 years ago

That's not true, Bill Clintons pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive, on his last day in office is pretty spot on

And waaaay more questionable, but only questionable if you give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt still

us0r2• 10 years ago

At the very least he should get a David Petraeus deal (who was trading classified information for sex).

zip12342• 10 years ago

The scale of what Petraeus did vs what Snowden did is very different.

msandford• 10 years ago

Yeah, agreed! Snowden gave reporters a lot of information which was then released to the American people on the quite probably illegal activities of their "security" apparatus.

Petraeus had an affair with a reporter.

One of those things made it possible for Americans to know what their government was/is doing with great personal risk to the whistleblower. The other....didn't.

us0r2• 10 years ago

I don't think scale is written into the law.

knodi1233• 10 years ago

who was trading classified information for sex

That's really not how I read the scandal. A woman, who formerly had clearance for classified material, was engaged in an illicit affair. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that 1.) the classified information was ever leaked to someone without clearance, and 2.) that any actual trading occurred.

brainfire• 10 years ago

Clearance is not a blanket authorization to access classified information- only information you require access to for your position.

Lapsed clearance is even less applicable, obviously.

krokodil• 10 years ago

He'll never get it. He lost any hope of whistle-blower status when he released information on foreign surveillance programs.

finid4• 10 years ago

You must be one of those very "patriotic" Americans.

The man sacrificed his freedom so yours may last.

tptacek7• 10 years ago

Try to keep in mind that reasonable people disagree about Snowden, and remain civil in conversations about him.

actsasbuffoon• 10 years ago

I think you might be jumping the gun on that conclusion. Grand parent may have been describing how things are, not how they think the world should be.

whamlastxmas3• 10 years ago

The government lost any hope of moral high-ground by performing illegal surveillance amongst many other things. It is not reasonable to expect Snowden to selectively only release information that was strictly illegal (due to sheer number of files to sort through) and it is reasonable for someone to whistle-blow through unofficial channels when official ones are not available (and they weren't despite many people trying to advocate that they were - save your breath).

Here's an idea - don't do horrifically illegal, amoral things alongside other legal but probably still amoral things, quash all possibilities of accountability, and expect that no one will call you out on it.

Snowden did the right thing, and the only thing that could have been done.

Aloha• 10 years ago

Snowden did the right thing - of this I have no doubt. But he also committed a crime - and depending on who you listen to it was either a grave one, or a slight justified one. Do I think his crime justifies 30 years in prison? no. I think the public good he did well offsets most of the harm - but I think he needs to go to jail for some amount of time, even if its only a day.

mixmastamyk• 10 years ago

That may be "right" or true, but the people in charge will never see it that way. Insert the quote about salary depending on misunderstanding it.

p.s. Always loved that song.

zepto2• 10 years ago

No. Whistleblowing on illegal government actions is totally different from treason. The fact that part of the government did something illegal in no way justifies undermining national security goals if those two are not related.

Snowden clearly did not do the only thing that could have been done. He did release documents selectively, therefore he could have chosen to not release the foreign surveillance information.

All governments do bad things. That justifies whistleblowing. It never justifies an attack on the country's international security by its own citizens. In case you handn't noticed, other powerful states have no qualms about cyberwarefare.

dTal4• 10 years ago

When did he do that?

finid4• 10 years ago

He makes a good case for the pardon, but Obama won't give it.

Why?

Snowden doesn't have enough powerful forces in high places that will push for the pardon. If he has friends like Jonathan Jay Pollard has, chances are he'll get it, but he doesn't.

rayiner3• 10 years ago

Obama has granted pardons or clemency to well over 100 people while in office. He has directed the DOJ to fill the pipeline of clemency cases for him to review before he leaves office, with a focus on people sentenced under harsher guidelines that were revised while he was in office.

Obama won't pardon Snowden not because Snowden doesn't have the right friends. He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move. Everyone can get behind pardoning someone sentenced to life for shoplifting under a three strikes law. Snowden is much more divisive.

hollander2• 10 years ago

He cannot pardon him right now. That would be too controversial in the US, and it might reflect on Clinton. But after the elections, or in the last month of his presidency, he might do this without consequenses.

finid4• 10 years ago

He won't do it because it would be a politically unpopular move.

If that were important in granting pardons, Clinton wouldn't have pardoned Mark Rich. Those politically-opposed to Obama will remain so regardless of what he does, so he couldn't care less.

dhimes• 10 years ago

He also may genuinely feel the guy is a criminal.

Red_Tarsius• 10 years ago

I admire Snowden's sacrifice, but the US can't pardon him. Doing so would signify weakness and encourage subversive behaviour. Traditionalist countries – China, Russia, Iran – are especially perceptive to status signaling. No doubt they would exploit the event to foster Anti-American sentiments. Also, we don't know the info Russian Intelligence got out of his asylum in Moscow.

Side note: I hope GMT Games releases an expansion for Twlight Struggle: 1989 ~ 2015. Despite the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has never stopped. I'd love to re-enact the past 25 years. Snowden flees to Moscow would be a Red Event, 2 ops: "US reveals their hand of cards this turn. Remove up to a total of 2 US Influence from one or more countries to Western Europe".

EDIT: to clarify, I do want the US to grant him pardon.

hollander2• 10 years ago

This is so much letting other people or countries decide what you should do. The Land of the Free should make its own decisions, no matter what China or Russia finds.

In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means.

Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.

wtbob• 10 years ago

In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic

He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.

Jahava• 10 years ago

At some point I have to draw a line between the information that he leaked regarding questionable (and, ultimately, illegal) domestic US spying programs and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations. The former is undoubtedly potentially patriotic, while the latter is a legitimate and legal function of the NSA and likely damaged its intelligence mission on a number of fronts (and is, ultimately, treasonous).

I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world.

For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.

harryh2• 10 years ago

Undoubtedly and potentially are two adverbs you rarely see next to each other.

justinpombrio• 10 years ago

and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations.

Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm.

EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?

KingMob3• 10 years ago

You're missing a key point in how the spying was actually done: because the Five Eyes nations have tighter controls on domestic spying, they relied on each other to spy on each other's citizens and share the data through reciprocity. Plus, the NSA used the excuse of a single foreign party on a conversation to hoover up all communications just in case. This severely blurs the lines between domestic and foreign spying, and it would be difficult to reveal the details of domestic spying without also revealing how the GCHQ spies on Americans and the NSA spies on the British.

Also consider that Snowden did British citizens a favor by revealing how the GCHQ was ultimately spying on them, too.

dsp1234• 10 years ago

could he have leaked the former without the latter?

Seems like a logical, though not desirable, no. He didn't, and I would argue couldn't, have had the time. From the time he fled until his passport was revoked, was a pretty short amount of time. Additionally, had he been caught before releasing the data we would never know the name Snowden, or the abuses that occurred.

I would say that the time spent sifting through journalists to find someone who was trust worthy was better spent. That person would then have a shield around them which would protect them, even if Snowden was captured.

So basically, if had stopped to do that before releasing, then the likelihood that we would have ever seen any evidence, let alone the correct set of evidence, is very small.

dllthomas2• 10 years ago

Doing so would signify weakness

Maybe. Ideally it could be spun as a sort of "costly signalling".

and encourage subversive behaviour.

Not any and all subversive behavior; subversive behavior of the form "I have deep ethical concerns about what is being done secretly here, so I am making it public." I want people feeling comfortable coming forward in that situation even if I ultimately disagree with their concerns. Threat of such is an important check on abuse of secrecy.

eru• 10 years ago

The proxy war might have never stopped, but what stopped was people taking Russia serious as _the_ second power on the globe. They lost that top spot.

tempodox• 10 years ago

Why would Obama suddenly stop whistleblower persecution? It's the one thing he will be famous for. And you can't ruin a bad reputation.

lordnacho• 10 years ago

I bet everyone's been digging for precedent. Found this:

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

Samuel Loring Morison (born October 30, 1944) is a former American intelligence professional, who was convicted of espionage and theft of government property in 1985, and pardoned in 2001. He was "the only [American] government official ever convicted for giving classified information to the press."

Seems pretty similar superficially. I wonder if he'll do it, Obama.

Also something quite odd is the number of pardons that seem a bit suspect. For instance Clinton pardoned his own brother. And Marc Rich. Think what you may of him (famous commodity trader, lots of shady deals rumoured), but his crime doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.

Pardoning Snowden would be a comment on the surveillance state, something worthwhile to talk about. Pardoning some guy who smuggled some oil doesn't seem to have a purpose in regards to the state's role in society.

talmand2• 10 years ago

Considering the Obama administration's actions towards whistle blowers, despite promising to be highly transparent, suggests Snowden will not be pardoned any time soon.

rbanffy• 10 years ago

In his place, I'd only pardon Snowden and Manning after the election is decided.

grecy• 10 years ago

Pardoning some guy who smuggled some oil doesn't seem to have a purpose in regards to the state's role in society.

Unless the role of the elected officials of that state is to make sure they and their friends become obscenely rich, and have impunity even when they do illegal things.

DigitalJack2• 10 years ago

I think it would be better to say "obscenely become rich" rather than "become obscenely rich." I personally don't think there is anything obscene about being rich in and of itself.

pc865• 10 years ago

Pardoning Snowden would be a comment on the surveillance state

Based on Obama's track record on privacy and surveillance I'm not sure what you think this comment would be.

slantedview• 10 years ago

He was "the only [American] government official ever convicted for giving classified information to the press."

What about Jeffrey Sterling?

burkaman• 10 years ago

That quote is from an article published in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/03/opinion/abroad-at-home-the...

He might have been the only one at the time.

Maarten88• 10 years ago

Marc Rich [...] his crime doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary

One of the biggest US tax frauds ever, polluted and corrupted Zambia, fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution (just the tax thing of course), hired lobbyists, sponsored congress library and some politicians, pardoned by Bill Clinton. An example of class justice, corruption and other things wrong in the US, but as you said: nothing out of the ordinary...

I'm afraid Snowden did not make enough money to pay off the right people, like Rich did.

freyr• 10 years ago

I think he meant "nothing out of the ordinary" as in nothing to warrant a pardon.

Except, of course, he was rich and well connected.

Consultant32452• 10 years ago

I wonder how much practical difference it would make to pardon Snowden. It's likely not safe for him to return to the United States anyways.

okwhatthe26• 10 years ago

state's role in society

You may have just blown Hayden's mind.

zmanian3• 10 years ago

Reasons it would be in the interests of the US govt to pardon Snowden:

- It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.

- It would remove incentives for Snowden to constantly amplify inconsistent/ hypocritical behavior of the US govt.

- It would improve the optics for the tech industry for working more closely with government.

Reasons it would be against Us govt interests.

- It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad.

zeveb2• 10 years ago

It would weaken the incentives against leaking national-security information. Of course, that assumes one cares about national security; if one doesn't, then that's irrelevant.

Given that the U.S. — whatever its faults and flaws — is the only guarantor of international order, though, a weakened U.S. is sure to lead to more international conflict.

zmanian3• 10 years ago

The US govt has already weakened these incentives because of the decision not to prosecute Petraeus.

The US govt should not have strong incentives against revealing widespread human rights abuse like full-take surveillance of entire countries.

abfan1127• 10 years ago

national security? guarantor of international order? Half of the world's conflicts are due to US intervention. Hell, we're giving weapons and training to both sides in some of them. Maybe we could use weaker "national security"...

eternalban• 10 years ago

I was predicting this from the "optics" of Snowden being a fake defector and feeding us precisely what the security establishment wanted the world to hear and know, whether the leak was truth or disinformation.

I maintain that the fake Snowden proposition is excellent news and should be seriously considered. It means they have run out of near realtime computation power and are drawning in data. :) If that is true, then

(a) Good news :)

and

(b) concentrate on getting secure comms for the 10%. (NSA does not care about dick pics and neither do those that engage in such activities.)

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.

Why would Snowden retire from the rabble-rouser personality he's become? He's passionate about the issues and I can't see him ever stopping. I also imagine hes deeply indebted to Putin's regime and probably doesn't want to wake up with a forced Polonium tea breakfast if he doesn't continue his anti-US commentary, even post-pardon or post-Russia.

I really don't see any practical way for anyone to do anything with Snowden but leave him in the bed he's made. Snowden won't just go back to work like a nobody if he got this hypothetical pardon. I'd be surprised to see any precedent of someone who fled to foreign power and became an anti-US mouthpiece for a hostile regime suddenly getting pardoned for treason.

Downvote away, but the 'Snowden == Hero' mentality is not shared with most and the idea that this pardon would be no big deal is a bit naive. It would be incredibly polarizing and controversial to the US public.

jokoon2• 10 years ago

- It would decrease Snowden's celebrity for him to return from exile.

I think it would be the opposite.

The longer the story drags on, the more people will forget it. Especially if he is cornered in Russia.

I'd be curious about Snowden writing a book about his late years at the NSA.

adregan• 10 years ago

It will be interesting to see the reception that Oliver Stone's film Snowden[0] will receive when released later this week. Anecdotally, most of my friends never seemed to care as much as I do and certainly care less now.

0: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/

libertymcateer• 10 years ago

Each of these points is up for serious disagreement.

1. His celebrity could increase exponentially when he returned home and was available to do a press junket and book tour. He would appear on every morning talk show and radio show and then a tour of the campuses, libraries and malls of America. This idea is absurd on its face.

2. He had the resolve to make the initial release knowing he was destroying his life - it is clear this is a moral stance for him and the personal damage is done. If he came back to the U.S., expect him to be emboldened and wind up working for a lobby or a not for profit.

3. Lobbying dollars >> optics.

RE: US Government interests:

1. It would make the democrats look weak on terror and intelligence in the face of an upcoming and obscenely hotly contested election.

2. It would be bad for morale of our intelligence agencies - by no means a 'soft' consideration.

3. It would, in fact, set a precedent that whistleblowers will get pardoned.

This last point is the whole issue. Neither this administration, nor future administrations, is going to be particularly fond of intelligence whistleblowers. Financial and business whistleblowers is one thing - but in intelligence? That is another issue entirely. All politics aside, though we may, as citizens, want this to be precisely the case and hope that if we ever held political office we would feel the same way, it is just unlikely that this attitude is going to be found within the upper echelons of the intelligence or political community.

Unfortunately, the downsides are hugely substantial to those in power and the upsides are widely distributed among the general public. With a risk/reward-matrix like that, don't expect to see any pardons coming down for Snowden anytime soon.

themartorana2• 10 years ago

It's a little worrying that I should be concerned about the morale of TLAs who have been illegally drag-netting the entire world without repercussions.

zmanian3• 10 years ago

I like these counter arguments

jomamaxx• 10 years ago

" It would, in fact, set a precedent that whistleblowers will get pardoned."

The assumption here is that Snowden is a 'whistle blower'.

Yes - in some instances, especially with respect to his release of information regarding domestic surveillance - he is.

But Snowden released a lot of information that has nothing to do with domestic surveillance, for instance, how the US spies on Russia. This is not 'whistle blowing'.

Someone tell me how releasing that information does not constitute a crime?

I agree that he should be pardoned for his 'whistle blowing' activities. But not for the other stuff.

okwhatthe26• 10 years ago

This last point is the whole issue

Man, you guys are like scared little cretins, scared to leave site of the shore!

metaphorm2• 10 years ago

It would make the intelligence community feel hurt/ sad

these are people who literally hire death squads to get what they want. hurting their feelings has consequences.

sangnoir• 10 years ago

It would improve the optics

Way off topic: is it just me, or did this particular usage of the faux-technical word "optics" spike this election cycle? To me, it reeks of punditry and/or snootiness (no offense) and rubs me the wrong way.

okwhatthe26• 10 years ago

They would be mad too at the mean man who took their secrets and didn't follow the rules. How dare he do that you know? What cause could possibly be greater than the intelligence community?

helthanatos2• 10 years ago

His case should have been: "You pardoned many criminals that actually caused harm, I on the other hand, only caused awareness of the government's surveillance crimes"

rhino3692• 10 years ago

He caused awareness of a lot more than that. If he just blew open the meta data bulk collection, I'd strongly support a pardon. But he disclosed much much more than that. Stuff that inarguably legal under US law.

helthanatos2• 10 years ago

What do you mean?

codezero• 10 years ago

Just out of curiosity – does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public?

I imagine that a hurdle to pardoning him would be that there is potentially content that would be too egregious not to charge him, which has yet to be released.

If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious :)

AJ007• 10 years ago

No, he would not be. Bill Clinton infamously pardoned fugitive Marc Rich who never did return to the US before his death because there was no guarantee he would not be prosecuted for something else.

Unfortunately, Snowden will never be able to safely return to the US.

dragonwriter5• 10 years ago

If he were pardoned, and that material were released, would he be immune to prosecution? This sounds like a thorny thing to try to figure out, or maybe it's really obvious

Its actually potentially quite simple, but impossible to answer without the actual text of the pardon. A pardon can be as simple or complex, and as broad or narrow as the President chooses to make it. It could, for instance, cover any offense that may have been committed by the recipient prior to the date of the pardon, in which case the answer is simple -- yes, Snowden would be immune.

knodi1233• 10 years ago

does Snowden have material that hasn't yet been released to the press/public

He has implied that he possesses such material, in great quantity. He is holding that possession up as deterrent against assassination, although if he received a pardon, presumably he wouldn't need that deterrent anymore?

Besides, I would think a deterrent such as I'm describing would be motivation for russians to assassinate him and make it look like americans did it.

digler999• 10 years ago

He has implied that he possesses such material,

To the contrary, he has adamantly denied possessing any such material. I dont have the source, but in several video interviews he's said to protect himself from being apprehended by foreign intel agencies for a copy of the material, he simply doesnt have it. He's turned it all over to journalists.

wildmusings3• 10 years ago

Snowden blew any chance of this when he leaked tons of data about totally legitimate foreign intelligence activities, not just domestic spying. Regardless of whether you think leaking the domestic spying programs was justified, his leaks about our activities overseas are unforgivable.

ben0x539• 10 years ago

As someone who lives overseas, I'll happily forgive him. I imagine I'm not alone in this.

wildmusings3• 10 years ago

His responsibility wasn't to your interests. If your interests conflict with America's interests, then yours lose out in the decisions that the United States makes. Just as if my interests as an American conflict with your government's interests, mine will lose out in their decisions.

okwhatthe26• 10 years ago

Nothing is unforgiveable. Not even failing to defend the country on 9-11.

ionised3• 10 years ago

totally legitimate

Nope.

shkkmo• 10 years ago

Am I missing something here? Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned?

drjesusphd• 10 years ago

Yes, you're missing something. Presidents can pardon before conviction, like when Ford pardoned Nixon.

dragonwriter5• 10 years ago

Snowden was never convicted of anything, how can he be pardoned?

You don't need to be convicted, or even charged, to be pardoned; a pardon doesn't even have to be specific as to the crime(s) it covers, it can just cover any crimes you may or may not have committed during some time specified time period before the pardon was issued (as was the case with Ford's pardon of Nixon.)

It is true that the usual clemency petition process operates after conviction, but that's a discretionary administrative process, it does not reflect the scope of the Constitutional pardon power.

benevol• 10 years ago

The problem lies with the assumption/argument of 'moral'.

The systems we live in are systemically corrupted by money (and/or power).

honkhonkpants• 10 years ago

Wouldn't he have to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned before he could be pardoned? I think what Snowden wants here is amnesty.

leksak• 10 years ago

What is he looking at to his right? Did he receive the questions beforehand and is reading his speech from a paper?

gumby• 10 years ago

I hope it happens!

I wonder what his life would be like upon his return. I suspect his life would still be in danger.

CyberDildonics• 10 years ago

I hope he gets it, but he'll probably have to donate $100 grand to the Clinton foundation like everyone else.

Edward Snowden makes 'moral' case for presidential pardon

Related Stories