SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:53AM
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
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
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
"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
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
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.