Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @02:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-and-no-means-no dept.

A campaign to pardon NSA leaker Edward Snowden, launched in combination with a fawning Oliver Stone film about him, hasn't made any headway. The request spurred the entire membership of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, 13 Republicans and 9 Democrats, to send a letter to President Barack Obama urging against a pardon. "He is a criminal," they stated flatly.

Obama weighed in on the matter on Friday. During his European tour, he was interviewed by Der Spiegel—the largest newspaper in Germany, a country where Snowden is particularly popular. After discussing a wide range of issues, he was asked: Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden?

Obama replied: "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that's not something that I would comment on at this point."

Will the NSA's spying and Snowden's actions come to define Obama's legacy?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:08AM (#431045)

    I voted for Obama twice and agree with him on a lot of things, including TPP and Snowden.

    But of course, it's politically incorrect to say that here. And we mustn't be politically incorrect on SN.

    TPP is a play against China, trying to strengthen our ties to the Pacific Rim so they don't dominate it. Obama is an excellent geopolitical strategic thinker, probably the best in the WH since Richard Nixon. And Snowden is a traitor. If he's pardoned, then anyone in a similar position who did less than him could argue that they deserve to be pardoned too, as long as they could point to a plausible motive that wasn't exclusively financial.

    So I don't necesssarily even disagree with Trump, except that the death penalty would be unwarranted except as a bargaining chip if Snowden started getting shrill about it.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Interesting=3, Disagree=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:43AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:43AM (#431060)

    Your opinion is trash. No mod points need to be wasted on it.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:53AM (#431118)

    I voted for Obama twice and agree with him on a lot of things, including TPP and Snowden. But of course, it's politically incorrect to say that here. And we mustn't be politically incorrect on SN.

    Oh, cry some more crocodile tears, you self-flagellator. Boot-licking authoritarianism doesn't go over well on SN because a large portion of the readership deals with reason, facts, and logic - not simpering emotion-and-herd-based temper-tantrums.

    A law which contradicts the US Constitution has the same legal standing as if it had never been passed at all (see: Norton vs Shelby County). Therefore, "laws" which authorize the wantion violation of the Fourth Amendment (among others) are not law, and "laws" prohibiting the disclosure of such illegal activity are themselves completely void. On that basis rests the assertion that Edward Snowden is a true USian hero.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:09PM (#431248)

      Twenty people would have twenty different opinions, but the interpretation of the Constitution and laws is up to the courts.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/26/fisa_supreme_court_says_americans_don_t_have_standing_to_challenge_surveillance.html [slate.com]

      BTW once Trump appoints someone which way do you think SCOTUS will lean on the issue of surveillance?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:42PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:42PM (#431266)

        The courts may have the authority to rubberstamp the bullshit, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:11PM (#431286)

        "but the interpretation of the Constitution and laws is up to the courts."

        they are the final say as far as the government goes. the people are the final say period. the founders said that it was the duty of every citizen to fight against any law that was not constitutional and any law that was not in the spirit of the constitution is automatically unconstitutional.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @08:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @08:04PM (#431449)

          any law that was not in the spirit of the constitution is automatically unconstitutional

          To flesh out your points with more detail: I believe it is critically important to clearly and concisely define just what is meant by phrases such as "in the spirit of the Constitution", "unConstitutional", etc. Without an accurate, easy-to-use metric, fork-tongued lawyers can quickly drown the debate in a "legal" quagmire.

          Here's a recent draft of my current approach [soylentnews.org], and an executive summary is: the whole of US government authority cannot exceed that of a single human being's. If I do not have justification to do something to someone else, neither can I delegate authority to a government to do that same thing on my behalf.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:06PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:06PM (#431376)

        BTW once Trump appoints someone which way do you think SCOTUS will lean on the issue of surveillance?

        The same way as if Hillary had been elected.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:04AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:04AM (#431135) Journal

    Obama is an excellent geopolitical strategic thinker, probably the best in the WH since Richard Nixon.

    The current messes in the Middle East and Ukraine are obvious rebuttals to that comment as is the continued nuclear proliferation (Iran and North Korea). Iraq in particular was an owned goal driven by Obama's vapid promise to completely pull out of Iraq. That promise lasted a bit over two years until the ISIS invasion forced his hand.

    And if you're looking for an excellent geopolitical strategic thinker, you need look no further than Bush elder. Obama isn't even close.

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:24PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:24PM (#431256) Homepage Journal

    "Politically correct" (as the alt-right, or more honestly, racists would put it) is just another way of saying politeness.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:30PM (#431428)

      Much like feminism is "just" about trying to make men and women equal. After that textbook definition is trotted out, you're often expected to accept the existence of widespread sexism and patriarchy and to always believe women when they say they're raped, or be called various names if you don't. Feminists who don't accept these things sometimes pretend as if people who do accept these things don't even exist, even if many of the so-called "third-wave feminists" are quite popular. Don't forget to be as smug and condescending as possible when explaining to the 'misogynists' that they are wrong about something.

      Likewise, with political correctness, it often seems more of an attempt to control what language you use. Maybe to you it means "politeness", but it's possible to be polite while using language you personally might find inflammatory, because politeness is subjective. Other people want to control what specific words you use, sometimes even wanting you to stop using certain words entirely.