SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
White House spokeswoman and Presidential Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco issued a response to the petition that Edward Snowden receive immunity from any laws he may have broken and be allowed to return to the USA as a free man. Her statement reasserted the Administration's position that Snowden is a criminal, running away from the consequences of his actions and should return to the USA to stand trial (and inevitably serve out the rest of his life in solitary confinement).
The full text of the response:
Thanks for signing a petition about Edward Snowden. This is an issue that many Americans feel strongly about. Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security, we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Here's what she had to say:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require."
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:33AM
We're very quickly approaching that threshold where the damage done cannot be repaired. The fact that they can say things like this without any sense of shame or hypocrisy demonstrates it:
not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime.
Worse yet, they can say such things with the bulk of the population not seeing the hypocrisy either. Also the editor /or article author forgot the last paragraph. It's very cute that they're the ones talking about open discourse:
We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home."
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:34AM
Woops, looks like I was mistaken about the last paragraph or the page just didn't load fully. Sorry about that.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:32PM
We're well past that point with the damage he's done to foreign intelligence gathering and processes.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 29 2015, @09:32PM
The real threat is from our government itself, which not only violates the highest law of the land, but basic ethical principles. It is far worse for the government--which is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people--to abuse your freedoms than it is for you to be attacked by terrorists, because then the entire institution of government becomes corrupt, whereas you already don't expect much from terrorists or criminals.
Our foreign intelligence gathering and processes *should* be damaged, because they are unethical, corrupt, and anti-freedom. That's what mass surveillance always is. Just because someone happens to be born in a different country doesn't mean they don't have rights. We need actual oversight before we spy on anyone. And as we've seen, if they're allowed to spy on foreigners with impunity, they will inevitably end up spying on Americans they believe are more likely than not to be foreigners. So it's bad for everyone.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:47PM
I agree with you. I would also counter those who argue for aquiescence, saying, "The majority of Americans don't even know who Snowden is!!!" Of course they don't. How many colonists truly understood the issues that led the Founding Fathers to rebel against Britain? In a time with no public educational system, no Internet, no universal suffrage, how could they have? Still, a few who did understand, fought.
Now, we have many more advantages and those who choose to defend tyranny cannot be understood to be doing anything but doing that willingly. They have every reason to know better, but still they choose to side with evil. We who value freedom, and freedom of thought, must spurn those. We who do pay attention and cherish our freedom must speak and act. If we don't, then we deserve 10,000 generations of slavery.
Washington DC delenda est.