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: 1) by albert on Thursday July 30 2015, @04:36AM
Do you really think they intended to violate the constitution?
They have a bias, and so do you. These biases lead to opposite conclusions. So far the courts have mostly sided with you, so in that sense you got things right, but that doesn't mean that the other side was purposely violating the constitution.
Most likely they were blinded to the situation by needing to get things done and by being in an echo chamber very different from the one here at soylentnews.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 30 2015, @03:13PM
Do you really think they intended to violate the constitution?
I think they don't give a shit. Their intentions don't matter, however; they're treacherous scum.
They have a bias, and so do you.
And their biases lead to egregious violations of our fundamental liberties, ethics, and the highest law of the land.
There are too many obvious constitutional violations for them to not realize this. I don't buy this apologist nonsense one bit, and even if they didn't realize what they were doing, they still deserve to be in prison.
So far the courts have mostly sided with you, so in that sense you got things right
I would be correct even if the courts didn't side with me. To say otherwise leads to a paradox. Does reality change once the courts make a ruling? Because courts have overruled previous court decisions in the past. Were both rulings correct, or did reality change in that time? The notion that the courts are always right is just a legal fiction at best, because at the end of the day you probably have to have someone with a bit of power who people listen to. But when the courts get it wrong, and they have and they will continue to do so, The People have to fix the situation.
Most likely they were blinded to the situation by needing to get things done and by being in an echo chamber very different from the one here at soylentnews.
I like how you're comparing the "biases" as if they're anything alike.