Pardon Snowden - <AUTHOR> https://www.pardonsnowden.org/ <comment><USER2> Maybe a naive question, but what would the risk be for me to sign this? I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border? Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble? Increased scrutiny from the IRS (which should have nothing to do with this, but "they" might say hell why not?)? Inability to get security clearances in future? Being targeted for more intense data collection by the NSA?

God, I hate how quickly you can get paranoid these days. A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

<comment><USER3> This is the so-called "chilling effect" that's one of the most worrying implications of mass surveillance on a society... people feel afraid to speak out due to a concern they may be added to a list of some sort, and face negative real-life repercussions due to expressing their free speech.

There were a couple of times where I actually called the public contact numbers for NSA & GCHQ regarding particular stories about which I was especially upset, identifying myself by name and politely but firmly expressing my views. NSA told me to go away, but surprisingly the woman at GCHQ heard me out for several minutes and let me finish my rant. That's the British establishment for you I guess - they can be assholes, but polite assholes.

Snowden risked _everything_ to inform us all of the crimes of the FVEY governments and the least we can all do is take inspiration from his actions and stand up and publicly make our views known, whatever they may be. The day people stop being willing to express their political views publicly is the day we lose something very important.

NSA - my name and XKEYSCORE selectors are in my profile. Feel free to add me to whatever lists I'm not already on.

<comment><USER4> This chilling effect has a counterpart which would be directly amplified by pardoning Snowden.

In short, if Snowden gets pardoned, it will encourage further people to leak confidential documents and violate the Espionage act since they will be emboldened by the thought they might get pardoned down the road.

<comment><USER5> This is not true. Snowden had to fly to Russia and live there for three years before a hypothetical pardon. If that is the minimum for the possibility of a pardon, I don't think many people would find that emboldening.

<comment><USER6> That's not really true. Though i'm in favor of pardoning him on balance, it would _definitely_ embolden other leakers. I'm quite sure that if I was someone considering leaking classified documents and I saw him get pardoned after spending 3 years in Russia, it'd embolden me.

Spending three years in exile is not great, but it's a far cry from a long prison sentence for leaking classified documents.

<comment><USER4> Especially if you plan ahead a bit better than Snowden did and emigrate to the country of your choice while you can still travel before leaking the documents.

<comment><USER7> There's only a handful of countries capable/willing to resist a US extradition request. Your choices are extremely limited.

Sure, you could try to go "underground" but you'd then become a top assassination target for the worlds most powerful security service. No one would ever know of your assassination either - you'd just disappear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you fear signing this, _and don't_, you really don't understand long risk mitigation and are just preparing yourself to be scared even more in the long run.

Just like privacy doesn't exist without others, signing this will at least help by giving strength, and privacy, in numbers.

Leaving this resistance alone, as if they were some heroes you respect but won't stand by, is really a cowardly way of being anti society and skipping your citizen duty.

First they came for them, etc... You know how it ends.

<comment><USER9> I don't know what long risk mitigation is, but I'm offended. /s

But seriously, nobody at the NSA is going to place* you on a watch list because you are part of a small vocal minority that raised support online for Snowden, a wanted traitor and saboteur of the USA.

*There is however a good chance that the money grubbing bastards at one of the third party contractors the NSA eats up reports and analytics from will profile you into something you are not (or lets face it, you are) and that will be ingested into our intelligence pipeline.

<comment><USER10> I'd be very surprised if the NSA doesn't collect these signatures for later matching. Doesn't mean that you'll have black vans following you around because of it - they have lots of lists for all kinds of things.

The most obvious application in this case is that you would be automatically disqualified for a security rating in the future. You'd never get to know the reason of course, you'd just be rejected.

EDIT: I still think people should sign of course. Let's not let them win by default by letting our fear control us. Do you really want that security rating if these are the requirements?

<comment><USER11> Pretty sure regularly visiting hacker news would also raise a flag... I mean seriously, they were flagging people who were on the Linux mailing list and what not.

In the end though, if they want you to work for them, security clearance will be granted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Who are these guys? Registrar is in Panama. The site says "partnership with ACLU and Amnesty International", but I cannot find any links from those sites to pardonsnowden.org

Both ACLU and AI have their own petition forms with different letters.

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take- action/edward-s...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take- action/edward-snowden-hero-not-traitor/)

[https://action.aclu.org/secure/grant_snowden_immunity](https://action.aclu.org/secure/grant_snowden_immunity)

Wondering if ACLU and AI are a little late to confirm, or if this is an elaborate attempt to get qualified contacts info.

<comment><USER13> Spot on.

The top comment in this thread is paranoia about whether this site is a hostile name collection honeypot (I think if it is, so is commenting on this thread, hello nsa).

One way of combatting such paranoia is to establish trust. This site accepts donations, but nowhere does it say WHO is running it. It has neat ACLU, Amnesty International, and HRW logos at the bottom, but anyone can put graphics on a page. It has a whole list of supporters, but all without any citation of their support (you would expect the Chomskys, Lessigs, and Greenwalds, but the Soros are a bit more surprising).

This is at best a rushed, uncoordinated release. At worst, it IS a name collection honeypot.

If this group does in fact have support of ACLU, AI, and HRW, it should link to those organizations' press releases of this particular domain. If it has the endorsements of popular figures, at the very least link to a tweet of theirs.

Snowden should be pardoned because he revealed that in the land of the free, we should always be looking over our shoulder asking if this is an NSA sting job. A good way of fighting that paranoia lifestyle is with credibility. These guys are failing that fight.

<comment><USER14> I just asked a few people on the "supporters" list who said they had "nothing to do with it", after trying to figure out more about it's core and see if I could get added to the list myself (my opinions on the NSA dragnet crap are well documented, I do not live in fear of them: [http://blog.neocities.org/making-the-web-fun- again.html](http://blog.neocities.org/making-the-web-fun-again.html)).

I'm starting to think they just got a list of people they believed might support this petition drive, and then added them to the site as "supporters".

Saying they are "supporters" of this drive is misleading. They should change the copy to say "these are some people that also support pardoning Ed Snowden".

At this point I would be _extremely hesitant_ to donate money to this group until its foundational structure gets clarified.

<comment><USER14> Update: This has indeed been validated by multiple sources to me as a real thing. The two people I asked about this told me they forgot that they signed up for it (sigh). How's _your_ morning going?

<comment><USER15> and who are YOU? (/sarcasm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the problem is, people do not care anymore. The scandal is over, business as usual. Only a small percentage of the population still cares about Snowden. I think the image of the NSA has been hurt and a change in legislation might get you some positive press in the future, but I do not think that pardoning Snowden would be worth the effort for a politician. On the other hand: Obama probably does not have to care.

Edit: I normally don't do these edits, but seriously, why am I getting downvoted for this? Obviously this is bad, that does not make it any less true. You must be the ones downvoting sad YouTube videos and the reason why Facebook had to introduce multiple like variants.

<comment><USER17> And then there are people like me, who don't see the situation as black&white, i.e. I am not signing that petition. In my opinion, for the sake of security, it is necessary to "cache" the whole Internet communication to prevent terrorists attacks and other dangers. Like what the Brits are doing and currently they didn't have any big attack after the London bombings.

I am not an American and I don't have a motivation to defend NSA or whoever, I just think that what Snowden did was partially wrong. Of course, caching the Internet like NSA and others are doing has human rights consequences, and those should be discussed publicly. But question the very existence of such practices is unreasonable in the situation the world is in nowadays. There are LOT of people in the world today who would want to wipe off the whole Western civilization, if they could... there must be a protection from them.

<comment><USER18> Even Snowden agrees that surveillance is necessary. However it is done outside of the public's eye and as we have seen without legal authorization. That's the part that made him blow the whistle.

Mass surveillance is deeply contrarian to our core values as a democratic society. If it is to happen there needs to be a discussion and a public decision. That's exactly what is set into motion by the Snowden revelations.

<comment><USER19> He agreed that targeted surveillance is necessary (I do too), not this indiscriminate 'collect it all' bulk surveillance of entire populations that we have now.

<comment><USER17> I think targeted surveillance is not enough - if you find a suspect, I think you need to take the bulk surveillance data and look at what that person communicated in the past and whether he is indeed a suspect, not just watch him only from this point on.

<comment><USER19> Considering the bulk approach is what they've been doing for 10 years or more and terrorist attacks continue to happen, usually by people the intelligence agencies already identify as risks, it doesn't seem to be at all effective.

The bulk approach leads to a saturation of data. That doesn't make things easier, it complicates them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm still genuinely curious about what the intelligence community thinks of him, if it's bad, what are the arguments against him. I've heard Mike Baker on the Joe Rogan experience say that he did not trust Snowden one bit.

In the intelligence world, it's common to be very cautions about leaks since foreign actors like Russia can really benefit politically from such scandal.

It can be difficult to really know all the details since it's covered in secrecy, and Snowden himself will knowingly avoid to say too much to reduce the damage.

In my view, digital surveillance is a complex issue because people don't really understand how it's done, the west is still waging a war against terror to avoid attacks in land, and agencies will often want to screw the due process to catch terrorists however they can.

<comment><USER21> From what I've gathered, the intelligence community thinks bad things about him; their view is "fix it from the inside."

Public leaks can be incredibly damaging to our operational advantages against various adversaries, and it's often non-obvious which data will be most helpful to them.

The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA lying to congress under oath. We don't even have the illusion of a democracy if we can't have effective congressional oversight of intelligence agencies with as broad a reach as the NSA.

<comment><USER22> > The main reason I stand behind him is the matter of the director of the NSA > lying to congress under oath.

Did he? Everything I've read is that he used true words, but didn't explain what those true words actually meant.

<comment><USER21> He was asked if the NSA had records on millions of US citizens and his answer was "No sir. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

His first explanation for this answer post Snowden was that the program was too secret to reveal publicly, so he had to give the "least untruthful answer" that wouldn't reveal the existence of the program.

Later his lawyer said that he had forgotten about the program in question.

Either way he did not use true words, but he may have merely forgotten rather than lied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The thing I hate about all petition sites is that they ask for my personal information for... what purpose exactly? They don't even seem to try to verify anything. They just look like scams to me, which is a shame because I really think they shouldn't be...

<comment><USER24> Petitions cannot/should not be anonymous.

The fact that your name and address is known to the entity receiving the petition shows that you really mean it. Also, for some entities it might be illegal to be moved by petitions signed by non-citizen. Unfortunately, those petitions systems only ask for your address, not for your citizenship. But we can assume citizenship from the address for the first order.

<comment><USER23> I know. Notice my complaint was about the lack of verification or other genuine need of the information. Not about the request for personal information itself. If they made legitimate use of it (and ONLY legitimate use), I would understand. However, the ones I have tried do not seem to verify anything, and instead use your contact info as a way to send you campaign materials and advertise to you in the future. That's the part that rubs me the wrong way - it feels like a scam designed to get your personal information. And in this age of identity theft, I really have little incentive to risk it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am for a full pardon. The risks to our privacy are greater now than they have ever been and a lot of people think it will keep us safe. If I knew more about history I'd be tempted to compare it to something like a more insidious version of the cuban missile crisis, but it's probably a bad comparison. Any historians around here - what would you compare it to?

<comment><USER26> I'm not a historian, but consider that the "medium" if you like, the Internet, all it's awful mudpie history of protocols etc, is ripe for the plucking by both sides.

Do you stand idly by while the hostile ones (whatever that might mean) use it to their advantage, or do you get your government with their huge funds to help in this regard?

The latter, of course. Trouble is when that agency becomes rogue, which it certainly seems like the NSA have, with rubber stamping.

But we still need some form of accountable defense I think. It's just gone horribly wrong.

<comment><USER27> That debate will always be at the forefront of security. In the 19th century, when the first professional police departments were established, people were outraged and convinced that the police were there to take away their liberty.

It doesn't excuse all action to improve security, but we do have to occasionally align our security with modern standards. What would happen if we left all cybersecurity (including banks, power systems, etc) to the private sector?

And then, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for the FBI to target people who visit a child pornography site? Most would say yes... People who download The Anarchist's Cookbook? Probably another yes. But what about collecting info on the people who supported that whole ordeal with Clive Bundy? Or people who belong to a non-state sponsored militia? That's where the line starts to gray for many. The point being, it's never cut and dry.

<comment><USER25> should you be on a list just for mentioning the anarchist cookbook? Personally I think being targeted for being curious what the anarchist cookbook is is a bit much - I think every other high schooler in my generation downloaded the thing for kicks - most of it is utter bullshit anyway. But yeah - clearly most people have their own definition of when it's justifiable to spy on people vs what's not so it does create difficulties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> To pardon Snowden seems like a very popular opinion around here. Can anyone help me change my opinion on this matter?

The way I currently see it:

\- Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them.

\- The vast majority of these documents do not constitute whistleblowing, but are standard operating procedure for the NSA. The US expects the NSA to do this.

\- Leaking standard-operating-procedure documents damaged the NSA, and thus the security / defense of the US.

\- Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

\- Snowden leaked / whistleblowed these documents in an operation using his secret agent skills.

\- Snowden fled to Russia, a currently not-so-cold competitor of the US.

\- Snowden's documents ended up in the hands of Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies.

\- Snowden's innocent leaks, such as the entire Intellipedia, damaged the intelligence community, causing them to "clam up", and place more mistrust on "outsiders", such as high-school diploma Snowden.

\- Snowden gave the document cache to incompetent journalists. Greenwald send his boyfriend to smuggle documents through British customs.

If Snowden had given only the slides on the NSA spying on American citizens, and cooperating with US companies, that would have been whistleblowing. As it stands, to me, it feels like a Russian operation to inflict PR/diplomacy damage on the US.

I have a lot of respect for whistleblowers, and also for Snowden. What he did is nothing short of heroic. But I do not believe in a pardon for someone who misuses his admin privileges to download all the documents he could get his hands on, then flees to Russia. What's missing for me?

<comment><USER29> Snowden used journalists (really just greenwald) to vet the documents.

He did attempt to use internal channels.

His original intent was not to go to russia, it was a last resort.

<comment><USER30> > Snowden used journalists (really just greenwald) to vet the documents.

It's a form of vetting, yes, but useful? Hard to say. It's also trusting a lot of information that could get people killed in someone's hands. Who's to say someone didn't pay Greenwald $10 million for a copy of all of it? You'd never be able to prove this happened unless they were really stupid about it.

> He did attempt to use internal channels.

The only thing I found regarding this was that he emailed a few "district heads" which, last time I did work in the area, don't really do anything. There is an actual, official channel to go through to reporting stuff like this (there are actually multiple; one for the NSA and one for the DoD in general). There are also more appropriate people he could have emailed.

Now I'm not saying internal channels would have worked but I haven't seen anything that showed me Snowden really tried hard to go through those channels in the first place.

> His original intent was not to go to russia, it was a last resort.

China is also not the greatest place to go. Honestly _anywhere_ outside of a SCIF and you could get picked up by interested parties. But since he did go to China and Russia we have no way of knowing if both of those countries have a full copy of his data or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For those outside of the US the link ([https://www.amnesty.org/en/get- involved/take-action/Edward-S...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/get- involved/take-action/Edward-Snowden-hero-not-traitor/)) does not work. Anyone know what the correct link should be?

<comment><USER32> I suspect Obama won't care too much about what people living outside the US think on this one.

<comment><USER33> At least some of us living outside the US are still US citizens, whom he presumably ought to care about (at least a little).

My actual experience, though, is that emigrants are viewed with some disdain by a good portion of US citizens. Then again, viewpoints like that are one part of why I'm an emigrant...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Why do you ask for my address when I donate?

We need your address to process your credit card payment. This lets our payment processor (Stripe) verify your identity and process your payment. We don't ask for information beyond what's required by Stripe. The people at the pardon campaign will be able to see your name, email address and physical address, but we will never see your financial data. Here is Stripe's privacy policy; here is our privacy policy."

That's a straight up lie. Stripe does not require physical address, it's entirely optional. Know what you're signing yourself up for.

</comment><comment><USER35> Holy hell! Looking at the supporters page ([https://www.pardonsnowden.org/supporters](https://www.pardonsnowden.org/supporters)) I do have to admit that they've acquired support from some people that I never thought to see there, like Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, and George Soros.

<comment><USER36> According to the comment just above yours, those "signatures" are unauthenticated?

<comment><USER37> This isn't about signatures or authentication, the site says outright that those people are supporters.

<comment><USER13> > the site says outright that those people are supporters.

With no citation. I can make a site say anything I want it. Credibility comes when you can point to other sites saying the same thing.

<comment><USER37> Now you're claiming something different.

hughperkins was using a "security mindset", and was implying that the site, due to lack of authentication, was being tricked into showing "George Soros" as a supporter because it just let anybody type in "George Soros".

This is not the case. The page of supporters is a page they designed, with no user input. The site is making the explicit claim that George Soros, _that_ George Soros, is a supporter.

If you believe the site is lying, no amount of authentication on the site's side is going to fix that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Pardonning Snowden while allowing the NSA to continue their business as usual would be strange.

<comment><USER39> Politics is the art of compromise.

<comment><USER40> Well, from a political point of view, Snowden is just a guy, and he did what he could do already. Pardoned or shot dead, makes little difference now (well, chilling effect is certainly even worse if the latter happened tomorrow, but its bad enough as it is).

The important thing would be wistleblower protection laws changes that would protect a future Snowden from this situation.

<comment><USER41> Edward Snowden is hugely valuable politically because he stood up to the intelligence agencies and survived (so far). Most importantly, we have a moral obligation to get him pardoned. Snowden sacrificed a great deal already. He doesn't need to be martyred, he should be allowed to return home and continue his life.

<comment><USER40> oh no doubt, what was done to him is atrocious and repugnant. I was only trying out an argument that _politically_ his fate is no longer important, and it is of greater value to focus on what will protect the next Snowden better.

It's still clearly a moral imperative to help Snowden.

<comment><USER42> > oh no doubt, what was done to him is atrocious and repugnant.

What has been done to Snowden that is atrocious and repugnant? _He_ is the one who stole information; _he_ is the one who absconded to adversary states. _Nothing_ has been done to him.

> It's still clearly a moral imperative to help Snowden.

The moral imperative is to see that he gets a fair trial, and then upon conviction to ensure that he is humanely executed.

<comment><USER40> Wow. Fine, I'll bite: He is prosecuted for the greatest act of whistleblowing since the pentagon papers. This has enabled improvements in both privacy regulations and accelerated the deployment of strong cryptography across the Internet.

As the Berlin University puts it, he can thus be credited with "extraordinary achievements in defense of transparency, justice and freedom".

Yet despite this, his country of origin has no laws needed to protect him and any future cases of the kind. And what the hell are advesary states? Last I heard the cold war was over...

There is of course no possibility that he'd get a trial, so your morbid fantasy is just that... Again, I'm simply astonished that there are people in the US who could see this act as anything other than utter heroism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Whatever your opinion on the actual Snowden case - I think pardoning someone is seen to active condone whistle-blowing within the miltary / intelligence community, which I can't see the Government wanting to do.

<comment><USER44> They should be condoning it. For that, a lot of things would have to change first though, like, for example, the community has to come to the realization that the (supposed) ends do not justify the means and that it's therefore the right thing to do to whistle-blow about them. They also need to realize that the internal mechanisms to whistle-blow are "not effective", to say the least.

<comment><USER45> You think every IT person in the government should have the ability to disclose any Top Secret programs based only on their own personal opinions about their legality?

<comment><USER46> They (the three-letter agencies) could always try not breaking the law. See if that cuts down on the number of employees looking to sell them down the river.

<comment><USER45> Is it up to low level employees with no legal training to decide who is breaking the law?

<comment><USER46> Hello from sunny Nuremberg. Wish you were here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I cannot sign this. I'm happy there is a debate over our privacy, and the information has come to light, but I still believe this man to be a traitor and he should be punished. A pardon is out of the question.

<comment><USER48> When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind: Being a traitor does not mean someone is wrong or deserving of punishment. The implication is that a person's country is always right, and also that if he had been a Russian spy, he would have been a patriot. No. Right and wrong are not governed by national borders and laws.

<comment><USER42> > When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind

I don't think Snowden was right. He was, in fact, wrong as a matter of the law and the Constitution. His concerns were misplaced. Okay, that's fine. But then, rather than doing the honourable thing and resigning — and keeping his oath — he betrayed his oath, he betrayed the trust placed in him, stole information he had no right to access in the first place and fled, first to Communist China and then to Neostalinist Russia (rather neatly giving the lie to his claims to care about human rights: the one government harvests organs from religious dissidents and the other detonated bombs in apartment buildings in order to solidify political power).

I am thoroughly convinced that a) not all Snowden has alleged is true; b) that which is alleged and true is legal and constitutional; and c) that which is both alleged and true is not something so immoral that despite being legal and constitutional it should be avoided anyway. Moreover, I am convinced that his behaviour meets the standard for treason.

<comment><USER49> What would you say is the point of having the power to pardon if doing something illegal is never justifiable, or if our justice system is infallible?

If our laws are ever unjust, or our justice system ever fallible, the argument "it was illegal" cannot be used to justify whether something was moral. US law is a terrible basis for morality and that's a super weak argument.

Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things.

<comment><USER50> Our justice system is not infallible, the OP never claimed that. And so, that's why we have pardons. It's pretty straightforward, if you don't misrepresent his argument.

> Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of > millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of > accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading > congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due > process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly > illegal things.

I'm sorry, but _really really_ wanting those things to be treasonous does not make them treason.

Your gut is not the US Code. The US Code has no provisions that cause things to become treason by chaining enough increasingly emphasizing adjectives together.

If you argued this in court, you would lose.

For my part: I don't like that Snowden took _incredibly serious_ (forget illegal) actions that served to cast aspersions on both the one and only meaningful US cybersecurity institution and the legitimacy of the United States government as a whole, and is now being harbored by Putin. Are people not seeing what has happened since? Russia is overtly inserting themselves into our domestic politics, and for the political feasibility of doing so, they should be (and by harboring a fugitive, absolutely are) thanking one Edward Joseph Snowden.

They're leveraging Assange as another mouthpiece, although there they get to hide behind being "Random Joe Public" donating to wikileaks. (And if you provide cover noise by doing so yourself: Stop. You're being played.)

What Snowden's actions predictably precipitated is incredibly ominous. I don't care how much pseudo-"Orwellian" surveillance was going on (that - do people not get this? - was _not_ being abused. There were no mass arrests of people who arranged drug buys on facebook, or via gmail or whatever. _Nobody knew it was happening prior to Snowden 's actions_ \- which is actually not true at all, anyone paying attention _(raises hand)_ knew since the Room 641a disclosures in, what, 2006? Snowden was merely a far-more willing talking head - but I digress. The point is: if a whistleblower had to tell you they were reading every last email, clearly they weren't exactly doing a lot with that capability!). That does _not_ in any way compare to giving an _actual_ dictator of an an _actual_ authoritarian party and government an unprecedented and dangerous level of leverage and influence and dirt on our _democracy_. Hell no, go directly to jail, do not collect $200, there doesn't need to be any detente with Moscow until Snowden is extradited.

A pardon? Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, this petition is an instrument of the Kremlin, meant to further extend their ill intent into our country. No.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Also don't forget about Manning who actually went to prison and is not getting any publicity now.

<comment><USER52> I'm for a pardon for Snowden, but not Manning. Snowden released info on a deeply classified and unethical program, targeted to dismantle the programs in question. Manning carte blanche released TONS of data about TONS of things, trusting only Wikileaks to filter out sensitive data.

<comment><USER53> Snowden carte blanche stole and gave up "TONS of data about TONS of things", trusting only Greenwald, et al to filter out sensitive data.

<comment><USER27> Basically, yes. Also, the evidence shows that he didn't one day "see something wrong and decided to report it" as the narrative claims. He quit a job on one contract to take another job (which he lied about his experience to get) and then stole information from there before releasing it all roughly 6 months after he was hired. Some reports I have seen estimate that roughly 90% of the information he released was from while he was working at Dell (the previous job) on a DoD contract (I was still DoD at the time so it was of "interest" to us what he released). Additionally, there are 0 records of him trying to report it through any channel and he has said in some interviews that he chose to go public "rather than" report it because he thought nothing would be done. By the way, contrary to the narrative, he didn't have one or two channels that ignored him (had he used them), he could have actually gone to any Senator or Representative with the information and still been protected (probably moreso since Congress would have been behind him).

Plus, as someone who held a clearance in the DoD (former interrogator), I will say it can be hard (especially for someone like those journalists who never held a clearance) to tell what can directly hurt someone else. Handing off NSA program documents could have potentially put the lives of CIA and NSA agents and sources around the world...but we would never know. Even the families of those people wouldn't know. All they would know is that their family member didn't come home.

<comment><USER53> Yeah, the narrative that he tried to follow the rules to get the "egregious" programs stopped is almost entirely false. He may have made one off-the-record attempt with a superior. He also once emailed someone that a test he took had a wrong answer in regards to Executive Orders being able to override laws, and that email got forwarded around until it hit an NSA lawyer and they stated that he was correct. EOs and laws carry the same weight, but EOs cannot override laws. And that was what he's referring to in a fair amount of his interviews.

<comment><USER54> Watch the Frontline special "The US of Secrets," to find out what happens to those who complained loudly enough.

<comment><USER53> Yes, I'll watch a multipart documentary to try and suss out the point you want me to learn.

Snowden complained loudly about a test answer. That's it.

<comment><USER54> You're very sure for someone who doesn't appear to have done much research on the subject.

The point in that riveting doc was simple, those that complained too loudly lost everything, thankfully not their lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Chelsea Manning needs it more, and in my opinion is just as much deserving of a pardon. I wish Manning was getting more attention and pressure for a pardon.

<comment><USER56> While I also agree Manning deserves a pardon, to be fair, he was significantly more careless than Snowden.

Basically all the arguments (lies) they use to damn Snowden can be fairly applied to Manning.

<comment><USER57> Manning is a woman. She uses the pronoun "she".

<comment><USER56> I was using the past tense and am unaware of her preferences for previous gender identification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'm kinda suspicious of this site -- none of the ACLU, HRW , Amnesty International links work at the bottom. And none of those organizations use whoisguard.

<comment><USER35> Because they're not links, they're images.

<comment><USER59> They were links, not images

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I know that I'm putting my name on a dissenters list, but isn't that kind of the point? I hate how it's become this casual reality that the government is always working behind the scenes to further its own interests, often regardless of the actual benefit to the average citizen. Today's political climate is like the fever that our society is enduring to effect change. Honestly, I'm not sure why Obama would not do this. I mean, I _know_ why everyone thinks he wouldn't but the sense that there is something to lose, as though the favor of all these Washington back scratchers was worth anything, seems really just like an illusion. Obama doesn't seem to me like an insider. He seems to me just like a guy I'd have a beer with who has a solid head on his shoulders. I believe there's a part of him that would just love to do this and believes it is right. I guess we'll see what happens.

</comment><comment><USER61> Whether or not Snowden get's pardoned depends on one thing and one thing only: _Whether Obama wants it as part of his legacy._

Either way it's not going to happen till after the election and most likely not till the end of his term in January. I'd expect it to be more likely for him to be pardoned if Trump is elected as otherwise Clinton, by association, would be dogged with "granting quarter to an enemy of the state".

<comment><USER62> Of the 3 possibilities for granting pardon (Obama, Clinton and Trump), the only real chance for Snowden is Obama.

<comment><USER61> > Of the 3 possibilities for granting pardon (Obama, Clinton and Trump), the > only real chance for Snowden is Obama.

Yep. I'd put it as zero with Clinton, non-zero but statistically insignificant with Trump, and 25% with Obama.

<comment><USER63> I think Trump is in favour of Snowden being executed, isn't he?

<comment><USER61> > I think Trump is in favour of Snowden being executed, isn't he?

I'm not sure but I can imagine him saying that at some point. Still, I'd put him at non-zero because he doesn't have the same political baggage that Clinton would worry about.

<comment><USER64> You can put Trump at non-zero because of his very random behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Looking forward to donating when they accept bitcoin. I have no expectation he'll be pardoned, but the other important thing here is that there's a documented movement for it. History will show that people wanted this and Obama and Hillary/Trump refused it. It will be more difficult for blind patriotic bias to weasel its way into the history books.

<comment><USER27> History is written by the victor. There was a large number of people who did not want the US to secede from Britain (including John Adams) but the history books (as given to the normal population) show us a proud group of united patriots who struck out against their oppressors...

More recently, the "greatest generation" signed up for WWII in droves, right? Actually over 50% were drafted with another estimated 100,000 Americans injuring themselves or fleeing the country to avoid the draft...

<comment><USER49> To be fair, anything near a 50% volunteer rate for a _real war_ is pretty fucking impressive. I'd definitely be a draft dodger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> These digital signatures are the equivalent of chain letters, send this to 100 people and your wish will come true.

If we as a people want to make change, we should use the net to organize people to make change in the real world not the digital world. Make time, get in the streets, protest, actually pick up the phone and call your politicians, write to them, write to the government. Overwhelm them so much that they are forced to say yes.

Presidents and politicians wish to be loved, they are like Emperors, they want to appease the people. If they people make plenty of noise, they cave.

<comment><USER66> As someone who has done strategy for NGOs for years... the petition doesn't make change, of course not. It makes a mailing list with consistency bias in the NGO's favor. Once you've signed a useless petition, you are MUCH more likely to do the next thing they ask of you. Tell a friend, donate money, call a politician, attend a rally, whatever. It is a very important tool, but it is a gateway tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Pardoning Snowden would still leave too many unanswered questions. If he's innocent, then a trial would clear the air.

Otherwise, future IT workers will believe mass exporting SharePoint/file servers as leverage is acceptable.

While "rule of least privilege" is a good default access control policy; Gov and corporate IT departments are now over compensating their sharing policies due to the precedence Snowden has set.

<comment><USER68> "Pardoning Snowden would still leave too many unanswered questions. If he's innocent, then a trial would clear the air."

That's not true given it's Espionage Act. The ridiculous setup of that Act essentially says he can be hit with highest charges, not provide anything classified for his defense, have released entirely legitimate stuff, and still get convicted due to technicality of the law. Plus, our legal system is an adversarial one not designed to bring out truth: prosecutors aim for convictions while attempting to dismiss anything that undermines it.

Best way to get truth, like him or not, is a pardon where he can say anything with immunity. If he's bad and ego-heavy, he'll slip up eventually. He already does on some things while enjoying the interviews too much. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> On a practical note, is it possible to pardon someone who hasn't yet been convicted of anything?

Presumably Obama could instruct the AG to drop the charges but that wouldn't prevent a future president from pursuing them.

<comment><USER70> Yes, it's possible to pardon someone for past unindicted crimes. Nixon was pardoned for Watergate by Gerald Ford, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Its the first petition that I find worth signing. I did it through Amnesty Intl as I dont live in the US. Only with an email address I dont know how credible the petition is, I wanted to prove that I'm standing up and supporting him. We either die all together like Maya, or we win.

I didnt understand where the money from donations go, but I could donate also for the right cause.

</comment><comment><USER72> "By taking action you agree to receive occasional email updates from the Pardon Snowden campaign."

This alone is enough to deter participation. These campaigns need to separate social action from database building.

<comment><USER73> I'd say the database building is the only important part. The single social action is _very_ unlikely to make an impact, but if they can continue to build a contingent of very interested participants, they can continue to push for their desired outcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I think there also needs to be a 'Protect all whistle blowers' petition also. A petition to pardon Snowden is a noble goal (IMHO), but there are deep rooted issues which are not addressed by simply pardoning one individual. I wonder why there is no, 'Pardon Chelsea Manning' petition also? Could it be related to transgender issues?

<comment><USER75> [https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/save- chelsea](https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/save-chelsea)

<comment><USER74> Well, I stand corrected and my faith in humanity is (somewhat) restored.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Why does the site need a Donate button shoved in my face. Auto opt-in to mail list is also selected. Also for a petition do they really need my home address and rest of the details? Shouldn't name and email suffice.

Happy to sign the petition but not at this site. Is there a way I can send a letter myself to the president?

<comment><USER77> I can understand why an address might be necessary to coorberate that some random signer from the internet matches to an physical US address.

But after I signed, it presented a donate page. I don't want to give them money since they have my addresses. They would have been more likely to get my money if they provided an anonymous donation portal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Snowden will not get pardoned, because (1) exposing illegal domestic spying was only a part of what he leaked, and (2) he admits that he specifically took the job with the intent to get information about NSA hacking of foreign computers to release to journalists in those foreign countries. See this comment someone posted on Reddit for details with links to sources: [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_sno...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_snowden_why_barack_obama_should_grant_me_a/d7kv7z7)

<comment><USER79> This arguments fails to see Snowden in context.

Edward Snowden went to the press with revelations because he was aware of the experience of previous whistleblowers.

Drake, Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark followed the official channels and reported their concerns within the system. There was intense retaliation against them. They were arreested, fired and charged with crimes that could put them into jail for the rest of their lives.

It did not stop there. John Crane who worked as assistant inspector general of the DoD was supervising the whistleblower unit as well as handling all whistleblower allegations. He faced retaliation after taking them seriously.

Before Snowden: The Whistleblowers Who Tried To Lift The Veil [http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden- the-w...](http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the- whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil)

How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers [https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...](https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers)

<comment><USER80> None of those people were put in jail for the rest of their lives. Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, and Roark were never arrested, let alone charged, let alone "with crimes that could put them into jail for the rest of their lives". Drake was charged --- he was believed to be the source for the NYT's blockbuster story on NSA surveillance --- but those charges were dropped.

<comment><USER79> >None of those people were put in jail for the rest of their lives.

Prosecutors tried hard to build a case to put them into into prison. They received punitive treatment and bullying, their houses were raided.

They raided Drake's house after he anonymously contacted DoD IG. Someone leaked this confidential information to DoJ. He faced 35 years of imprisonment. The judge in the case had some harsh words against government. [https://fas.org/sgp/jud/drake/071511-transcript.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/jud/drake/071511-transcript.pdf)

<comment><USER80> That's not what you said. We could further litigate your revised summary of what happens to NSA whistleblowers, and I'd be happy to do so, but first I'd like to know that we're not just playing Calvinball.

<comment><USER79> I think you were right and I was wrong using the term arrest.

<comment><USER80> Thanks!

So I think my objection to this narrative is clearer if we put it back into context.

What we're really debating is whether someone like Snowden had the means to appropriately handle the issues he discovered through official channels. The narrative on places like HN is that by raising issues and escalating them, perhaps beyond NSA, and NSA's IG, all the way to Senate Intelligence, someone like Snowden would face retaliation.

Here, I think, I have two points to raise:

* First, if by retaliation we mean "termination", it's hard to fit that into the actual Snowden story. Snowden took the Booz job in the first place in order to gain access to this information and route it to the people he thought needed it. His only reason to be there was to do the thing we're saying he'd get fired for. That's not a real deterrent.

* Second, if we look at actual prosecutions --- or even FBI investigations, like what happened to Binney and Roark --- they're tied up with _news leaks_. It's hard, I think, to find a case of an NSA whistleblower who faced law enforcement retaliation for escalating concerns to the NSA IG or Senate committees. Where you see the DOJ go ape-shit is when NSA secrets wind up on the front page of the New York Times. Indeed, that's what happened to Roark and Binney and Loomis! They got caught up in an investigation into an NYT story that was launched at the (direct!) behest of George Bush.

<comment><USER68> "they're tied up with news leaks. It's hard, I think, to find a case of an NSA whistleblower who faced law enforcement retaliation for escalating concerns to the NSA IG or Senate committees."

I agree with this. The natural follow-up is, "Are there any examples of those doing internal whistleblowing on programs endorsed as much as these by Executive and Congressional groups getting results that Snowden leaks have gotten?" It usually business as usual with occasional fine or scathing report that I've seen. I doubt a leak-less version of Snowden would get new bills in, jurisdictions changed for major companies, all kinds of privacy startups, etc.

I'd be interested in example you have where similar things came from internal links. You didn't claim you did but I'm asking just in case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> I don't agree with Snowden's actions completely, but, on the whole, he acted in good faith.

I think the mass dump was a little ill advised, and he maybe could have thrown his lot in with slightly more responsible journalists who could have arbitrated what would be useful for the public to know a little more judiciously (I like Greenwald, but he can be unreasonable sometimes). However, on the whole I think it was for the good. I think its important to remember that he didn't have a lot of time to act once he started down this road, so I'm sure some hasty decisions were made.

<comment><USER82> He didn't mass-dump like Wikileaks does though; Greenwald has been dripping out the vetted content over time..

<comment><USER68> No, he mass-dumped domestic and foreign operations... including those used on highest-value targets... onto foreign journalists intent to publish best of it. That either equivalent to what Manning did or pretty close. They latter published lots of this with real consequences for NSA's SIGINT. He also didn't have to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I think Snowden is a true patriot for revealing what our government was doing against us. That said, a full pardon isn't going to happen.

What they should be shooting for is a fair trial. One that isn't being prosecuted under the Espionage act which would allow his lawyers to use the "for the common good" defense. Under the espionage act it severely limits his affirmative defense options.

</comment><comment><USER84> I wish we could sign as citizens of other countries.

<comment><USER85> You can:

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take- action/Edward-S...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take- action/Edward-Snowden-hero-not-traitor/)

<comment><USER84> Oh damn, thanks, I did not know amnesty was on it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> And you think that pardonning him is suddenly make everything okay with his former bosses? I'm pretty sure there are people in high places that feel they've been made a fool of by what he did.

If he gets back on US soil, he'll suddenly disappear at a convenient time when the entire country is too busy with other stuff (eg. post-election, superbowl, christmas, some war).

</comment><comment><USER87> John Schindler's reporting works as a kind of explainer on why Obama/Clinton/Trump are v. unlikely to pardon him: [https://20committee.com/2014/05/31/the-xx-committee- snowden-...](https://20committee.com/2014/05/31/the-xx-committee-snowden- reader/)

<comment><USER88> What a nut! That's certainly a kind of explainer on why it was better when the nation was run by the people's elected representatives rather than unaccountable unhinged spooks.

<comment><USER89> He's a nut because...?

<comment><USER88> I didn't read everything, because the universe is still young, but randomly clicking got to this [0] in which this self-proclaimed expert, in stereotypical fashion, veers wildly between claiming secret knowledge that proves him right, claiming that everything important that Snowden released was already well-known, claiming that Snowden's releases harmed USA, and an idiosyncratic form of definite-article-based hermeneutics.

That's nutty. Like, Payday-bar-nutty. Greenwald was like, "is this dude serious or just off meds?" Although I do support the elision of the definite article before proper acronyms that signify organizations of questionable ethics.

[0] [https://storify.com/AthertonKD/greenwald-and-schindler- fistf...](https://storify.com/AthertonKD/greenwald-and-schindler-fistfight-in- secrecy)

<comment><USER87> I think that people who have domain expertise about classified information are different from people claiming "secret knowledge." He overstates his case in some circumstances, and I think that there were positive effects of the publicization of some of of the Snowden data, but it's also tough to dispute, I think, that his releases also harmed the United States. I'm happy to expand on this if you need.

<comment><USER88> Those inside the national security apparatus often seem to have difficulty differentiating harm to national security apparatchiks from harm to the nation itself. Many of us outside, don't have that difficulty. As Greenwald tweeted, _" My sources are the documents and - I know this is shocking - people who don't work for the US Govt"_

Also, the big idea that the releases revealed nothing previously unknown directly contradicts the big idea that the releases harmed USA. The spooks can't get their story straight, because they're out of practice. Previously, why would they ever have given a shit what the public thought? They got to pretend they were "inside", and occasionally drafted memos to the effect of "my word, chums, perhaps we might go in for a bit less of the horrible invasions of privacy and horrible wastes of the public purse?", with which memos the real insiders would wipe their asses. Ain't no deception like self- deception.

<comment><USER89> > Those inside the national security apparatus often seem to have difficulty > differentiating harm to national security apparatchiks from harm to the > nation itself.

Are you an American? I think it's is relevant to this conversation. Because if you're not, I couldn't care less what you think about this. From a non- American's perspective, it's an internal matter. You don't like America spying on other nations? I have news for you: your nation does the same thing. Espionage is the second-oldest profession. If you don't like what the NSA does in foreign SIGINT, take the plank out of your own eye first. (And then enjoy the few years your nation has left before its newfound weakness allows it to be destroyed.)

If you are an American, then I implore you to cast off your leftist, anti- American shackles and think for yourself. No nation is perfect, and there are plenty of problems in our government--that's the whole point of America to begin with, to compartmentalize and restrain government so it can't abuse the People! But this idea that America is now the source of evil in the world is a false narrative; plainly, a lie.

It's unacceptable for the DNI to lie to the People and to Congress, and it's unacceptable for any agency of the government to violate the law, of which the Constitution is the highest. However, that does not change the fact that Snowden's actions did harm American interests abroad and endanger the lives of American men and women working in harm's way.

Even if there was a part of Snowden that thought he was whistleblowing on domestic violations (which looks increasingly unlikely, especially given that he didn't even try to use the existing whistleblower apparatus), his actions were not solely that. He has defected to Russia, which is posturing itself as an enemy of the U.S., and he is now cooperating with their intelligence agencies. Even if he did expose illegal domestic activities, he also committed treason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> I think maybe we should re-think the method of whistleblowing -- I think the best way in the current climate would be to leak to congress first, if nobody responds, hold a press conference (from Russia) -- and let them know the nature of evidence you have, and that you want whistleblower protection and then you'll go before congress and divulge the full nature... -- everyone in government should at least be able to see the nature, then they can leak/share whatever won't hurt national sec interests, --but it'll still get a lot of the issues out front and center... --though I still support Snowden in a big way-- if it were me--something like that would be better, and provide less liability.

But they could definitely use a government whistleblower protection mechanism... But good luck with that.

</comment><comment><USER91> Seeing mostly downvotes for those not in agreement with the herd.

I, too, do not support a pardon. He should stand trial, and if he in fact broke laws should pay the penalty. I wouldn't want to set a legal precedent that it's OK to join one of our intelligence agencies and leak information.

</comment><comment><USER40> can he do that? pardon someone that hasn't been apprehended nor trialed yet?

<comment><USER92> In the case of Ford's pardon of Nixon, the pardon covered "any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president," as Wikipedia currently has it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon)

As the entry goes on to state, that was controversial, but it worked. So it should be able to work in a case like this as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Even if he gets pardoned, I think he will just disappear.

<comment><USER44> Maybe he would have a tragic car accident, or commit suicide.

<comment><USER94> It's a shame you're being downvoted for something that's entirely possible.

<comment><USER44> Maybe it's still news to some people that there's plenty of precedent for that? For every Litvinenko there is 100s or 1000s that died in more subtle ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Might be we should also campaign to give Snowden the peace nobel price.

<comment><USER96> I think there have been one such campaign at least in the past few years. But I totally agree, there should be continuous campaigns till he gets one, and by then if he is not pardoned, it will be a big embarrassment to the US government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> I always wish there were a way to vote "no" on these things.

</comment><comment><USER98> That's a great idea. He did break the law, but he alerted this country to things that we need to be aware of. I fully support a pardon for him and will sign it.

</comment><comment><USER99> I'd like to sign the petition. I generally try not to think too much about implications of free opinion actions, to avoid these worries stop me from voicing my opinions. In these case also I'm not an US citizen so it is somewhat easier to do. But looks like only US citizens are allowd to sign this. Do you think that the signature of a non US citizen worths something?

<comment><USER100> Pfft, the form itself has mandatory fields, but doesn't seem to check the veracity of any of them... just put your name, put random content in any of the fields you're uncomfortable giving information for, choose California and 90210 as the ZIP and it'll let you submit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> _How do you know_ this guy (and the whole set of characters and institutions that he legitimizes -- Greenwald, Omidyar & co, Washington Post, Guardian, the Intercept, the 'blessed' crypto, etc.) -- are on the up and up?

Everything about this story, its central "hero", and the cast of characters of the show, smells imo.

<comment><USER102> What's your point? Regardless of the personalities involved, I don't think anyone has refuted the facts of the leaked documents. Yes, humans are human and nobody is a perfect angel or robot ... but what does that have to do with the facts of what was released?

<comment><USER101> Let's review the leak:

* NSA spies on foreign governments. Isn't that their job?

* NSA spies on Americans, & has compromised infrastructure. Your first assumption here is that the ruling elite won't want you to know that. Have you ever considered they wanted you to know without official acknowledgement? Go find an oldhand AT&T geek and ask them about the telephony and NSA.

> Regardless of the personalities involved

You would have a point if Snowden had released the material to non-corporate actors (how about UN's human rights commission) and wasn't on the talking head [1] road show pontificating on various matters. If the actor is false then the road show is a cause for concern, don't you agree?

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog) I want to see a pic of our hero in Moscow, holding today's edition of whatever passes for journalism in Russia, posted to twitter, to start with.

<comment><USER27> Another point to be made is that while they say that "much has changed due to his actions" not all has been positive. Several court cases came out after this affirming the idea that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" for any internet-facing machine. In fact, the District Court in Virginia this month said that the FBI had the legal right to install malware on the computer of someone who visited a child pornography site. The ruling basically stated that in the modern era of technology, the general consensus is that no public- facing technology is safe from exploitation, so by using it (it being a computer), he acknowledged the risk that everything he did would be made available for observation from a 3rd party (whether a company or the government).

Google won a case a few years ago to the same effect. They were sued for scanning a private business' e-mail traffic and using it to target advertising. That court also ruled that if it was unencrypted communication, moving across "public" lines, then it was fair game for anyone who could intercept it.

<comment><USER101> > "no reasonable expectation of privacy"

Exactly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> How to take action outside US ? The link to Amnesty international on the Take Action page is broken.

</comment><comment><USER104> My opinion of what we should do with Snowden. Not quite a pardon, but almost.

[https://danielmiessler.com/blog/what-us-should-do-edward- sno...](https://danielmiessler.com/blog/what-us-should-do-edward-snowden/)

</comment><comment><USER105> I've just signed the petition;

</comment><comment><USER106> Is this petition being championed by the ACLU?

Would donating to the ACLU be more effective in affecting real pressure?

Just like subscribing to Linux Journal, or running a tor node, if you sign this petition your information will end up on a list of "person to keep tabs on".

</comment><comment><USER107> A pardon would be very unlikely. Since Snowden is being "made example of" to prevent similar whistleblowing and leaking activity.

Even if the government pardons him, the country is full of armed lunatics on meds, he wouldn't be safe.

</comment><comment><USER38> > And technology companies around the world have been newly invigorated to > protect their customers and strengthen our communications infrastructure.

Yet among the supporters, no mention of Larry Page, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER108> Everyone seems to forget that Snowden didn't just leak information about domestic spying, but also about unquestionably legitimate spying on foreign countries. There's no way he gets a pardon for that.

<comment><USER49> > unquestionably legitimate

Absolutely questionable. There's a concept called "human rights" and just because the US has failed to force unaccountable government agencies into acting in a humane and moral manner doesn't mean that what they're doing is justified. Invasions of privacy on foreign people on such a granular level is abhorrent and that fact hat it's not illegal doesn't mean Snowden did anything wrong by disclosing it.

<comment><USER108> Privacy rights for foreigners do not exist under US law. The US cannot allow people with security clearances to just ignore the law, determine what is right and wrong, and take matters into their own hands. How our government treats people in other countries is a matter for the President and Congress, the elected representatives of the American people.

<comment><USER49> Basic rights for a lot of people, even our own citizens, do not exist under US law. Even our own prisoners are denied pretty basic rights (solitary confinement for literally years at a time, sometimes over a decade). Felons who have served their time are denied basic rights (voting) in some states. People have spent over a decade in prison without any sort of due process (from contempt of court, being ordered to do something they couldn't).

The lack of a law forbidding something is not justification for it being acceptable behavior.

>The US cannot allow people... take matters into their own hands

That we have a (flawed) systemic and protected whistleblower system says that the government itself disagrees with you. And save your breath if you're going to try to argue Snowden should have used that system - it wasn't available to him despite people trying to argue otherwise.

<comment><USER108> You're totally misunderstanding the whistleblowing system. It exists to uncover activity that is illegal under US law, not for people to make moral statements about what the law should be. What the law should be is a matter for our elected representatives.

I'm not sure what your point about contempt of court is. Yes, of course you can be held indefinitely until you comply with a court order. Otherwise, a court order wouldn't mean anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Doesn't pardoning assume convicting him first? Or does it mean there won't be open trial? I think an open and media covered trial will be more valuable to the public. Not sure about himself.

<comment><USER110> The assumption is that he has been convicted by a secret court (FISA).

<comment><USER111> FISA's jurisdiction is to rule on surveillance permits. Not criminal convictions.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court)

 _The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies._

The governing legal code: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805)

So:

1\. FISA doesn't do criminal convictions.

2\. There are no secret courts in the US capable of _in absentia_ trials.[1]

3\. Your attacking those who are correcting your factual misapprehensions doesn't play well here. Please don't do that.

________________________________

Notes:

1\. _If a defendant takes off during the pretrial phase, however, he may be able to elude an in absentia conviction. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial."_

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html)

<comment><USER110> I am not attacking anyone, simply clarifying the implicit assumptions of people who believe that Snowden needs a pardon. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has introduced jurisdictions that goes outside of the usual process of law, notably publicity; people who oppose that trend in government tend to assume that Snowden has been convicted using such an extraordinary measure. Whether that is possible within the current law framework seems irrelevant to both those claiming for his head, and Snowden himself.

<comment><USER111> FISA is all flavours of horrible. But what it _doesn 't_ do is provide a venue for convictions. Only (and I grit my teeth and clench my gut when I write that) approval of surveillance requests.

In a no-contest, no-appeal, rubber-stamp, kangaroo court, yes.

But only surveillance orders.

And, my error, it was whamlastxmas who went full tinfoilhattery on us, not you. The inability to see up/down thread when responding to an HN comment is a bit crippling. I apologise for my third point, that doesn't apply to you.

Your clarification that _some other people_ might think Snowden's already been convicted (by a court which cannot convict, no less) might have legs, though I've seen no particular evidence of it. The strictures against _in abstentia_ convictions make it little more than a myth, and it probably _shouldn 't_ be offered without noting that it violates numerous elements of US statutory and case law.

<comment><USER110> > some other people might think Snowden's already been convicted

The supporters of the original link: [https://www.pardonsnowden.org/supporters](https://www.pardonsnowden.org/supporters) obviously think he has: why else ask for a pardon?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> Even if pardoned how could he ever come back? Surely they will paint a target on his forehead and "oops" casualty of a car accident or maybe he magically gets cancer etc.

</comment><comment><USER113> Snowden has become a pop culture icon for this generation. I don't know if it makes sense to punish him given the kind of debate he was able to create in the last few years.

</comment><comment><USER114> Pardon my paranoia but, who's running this campaign?

</comment><comment><USER115> I'm not sure he deserves a pardon. Yes he did some good blowing the whistle on survalence but he crossed the line releasing everything else.

</comment><comment><USER116> They need to add a Bitcoin option for donations so we can donate without risking a lifetime of issues with the TSA and other government agencies

</comment><comment><USER117> I signed the petition at whitehouse.gov that got about 142,000 signatures... it didn't help much but I will take action here too.

</comment><comment><USER118> Can Obama really pardon Snowdon? If so, I'd think that he can be arrested again for something or the other by the next power.

</comment><comment><USER119> They should add a simple 'Approve' or 'Like' button on the page.

On the website, I clicked on the 'TAKE ACTION' button and for about half a second I actually considered writing a "letter to the president"... but then I came to my senses and realized that I don't actually know ANY of these people.

I approve of the idea of Snowden and the idea of Obama pardoning him but this is all very abstract in my mind... Feels like writing a letter to Santa Claus.

</comment><comment><USER120> People on H1B, Green-cards, who might be dealing TSA, USCICS, IRS for any reason etc. better not sign this one.

</comment><comment><USER121> If it doesn't happen now, what 's the probability that Hilary/Donald would grant pardon?

<comment><USER37> Donald Trump wants Edward Snowden executed, extrajudicially if necessary.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130624/17270323599/donal...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130624/17270323599/donald- trump-thinks-extradition-process-is-too-slow-suggests-just-killing-edward- snowden.shtml)

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> I will not support Snowden. He invaded the government's privacy by releasing those documents.

</comment><comment><USER123> Why does it show four months of countdown if voting's in a bit more than two months?

<comment><USER124> Because the sitting president doesn't leave office on voting day. The actual hand-off (Inauguration Day) doesn't happen until January.

<comment><USER125> If I remember right pardon day is right before the transition.

<comment><USER126> Effectively, in that it's "tradition" for the president to issue a bunch of pardons right before leaving office, largely because it's the last chance to do so, partly because at that point it's too late for any political opponents to use it against him.

But the sitting president can issue pardons at any point during the presidency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> Where is the question of a pardon if one has not faced trial and been found guilty?

</comment><comment><USER128> I think Obama should not just pardon Snowden, but nominate him to a position of NSA director.

Snowden is both a top professional and cares about our rights and freedoms. NSA is still needed (in some form) in the real world, and I would definitely feel safer if Snowden was at its controls.

</comment><comment><USER129> I can't edit the letter before submitting it... Is it my browser?

</comment><comment><USER130> I love the black and white nature of this.

A crime is a crime even if done for good.

But I like Snowden.

Tough call.

<comment><USER131> > A crime is a crime even if done for good.

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." ― Martin Luther King Jr.

It is true that the law said it was illegal for Snowden to do what he did. It is also the case that the law allows for a pardon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> It'll be odd if he comes back, safer to remain in exodus.

</comment><comment><USER133> One of the problems I see with this is that Snowden probably is an asset/agent of the Russian FSB at the moment. Quite possibly he already was one at the time of his defection.

</comment><comment><USER134> Even with a official pardon, I highly doubt he could ever return to the US. At some point he might just disappear, or gets into a car crush or things like that. Accidents happen.

</comment><comment><USER135> i mean we should try. but after 8 bloody years of that dick head in office, ppl really think there's any fruit to pick?

</comment><comment><USER136> Not a fan of how much information the PardonSnowden.org form asks for.

</comment><comment><USER137> Respect the brave!!! Admire the braver!!! LONG LIVE SNOWDEN

</comment><comment><USER138> the donation pop-up is broken :(

</comment><comment><USER129> Just being nosy... here's the source of the page (post render) piped through sed 's/^[ \t]?//;s/></>\n<'|egrep '(form|input)'

        <form method="post" id="takeActionForm" action="/take-action">
        <input type="hidden" id="FormId" name="FormId" value="27448">
        <input type="hidden" id="AdditionalAdvocateFormId" name="AdditionalAdvocateFormId" value="27452">
        <input type="hidden" id="EngagementId" name="EngagementId" value="236633">
        <input type="hidden" id="UserAgentHeader" name="UserAgentHeader" value="Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36">
        <input type="hidden" id="UserIpAddress" name="UserIpAddress" value="22.40.531.428"> EDIT: I shuffled my valid external IP address...
        <input type="hidden" id="RefererHeader" name="RefererHeader" value="https://www.pardonsnowden.org/">
        <input type="hidden" id="RedirectToAction" name="RedirectToAction" value="Donate2">
        <input type="hidden" data-val="true" data-val-required="The DisplayCampaignSubscribeLanguage field is required." id="DisplayCampaignSubscribeLanguage" name="DisplayCampaignSubscribeLanguage" value="True">
        <input type="hidden" data-val="true" data-val-required="The DisplayThanksForDonation field is required." id="DisplayThanksForDonation" name="DisplayThanksForDonation" value="False">
        <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * First Name must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '60'." data-val-maxlength-max="60" data-val-required="The * First Name field is required." id="FirstName" name="FirstName" value="">
        <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * Last Name must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '60'." data-val-maxlength-max="60" data-val-required="The * Last Name field is required." id="LastName" name="LastName" value="">
        <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * Address Line 1 must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '255'." data-val-maxlength-max="255" data-val-required="The * Address Line 1 field is required." id="Address1" name="Address1" value="">
        <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field Address Line 2 must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '255'." data-val-maxlength-max="255" id="Address2" name="Address2" value="">
        <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * City must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '250'." data-val-maxlength-max="250" data-val-required="The * City field is required." id="City" name="City" value="">
        <input type="text" class="select-dropdown" readonly="true" data-activates="select-options-9f05dea8-21fe-9153-1eed-9b52a0b1255f" value="Alabama">
        <input type="text" data-val="true" data-val-maxlength="The field * ZIP Code must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '30'." data-val-maxlength-max="30" data-val-required="The * ZIP Code field is required." id="Zip" name="Zip" value="">
        <input type="email" data-val="true" data-val-email="The * Email Address field is not a valid e-mail address." data-val-maxlength="The field * Email Address must be a string or array type with a maximum length of '250'." data-val-maxlength-max="250" data-val-required="The * Email Address field is required." id="EmailAddress" name="EmailAddress" value="">
        <input checked="checked" data-val="true" data-val-required="The I agree to receive occasional emails from the ACLU, our campaign partner. field is required." id="aclu" name="AcluOptIn" type="checkbox" value="true">
        <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="CfDJ8NLtLyWwUzRIooGDwJFKIrt9vYAjiCpeZejgvGQHEf2k-wesrFUsmYg4qRtQqkfPwiEKAwh2k4kcf6IWPVfAsnHRaU_XfsRXCICY7oFAfiNFWVkaIi2Z5kJi6gdHw44Ht2y2Gigzh3UmtkUigpw62uU">
        <input name="AcluOptIn" type="hidden" value="false">
        </form>

...So, AcluOptIn is being forced to false?

I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that my http client information is being saved to prevent automated form submissions?

</comment><comment><USER139> whistleblower protection?

</comment><comment><USER140> I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts

<comment><USER141> In theory those are different. In practice though there hasn't been a single socialist country that hasn't at least devolved into authoritarianism or even has been so right from the start (Scandinavian Socialism and modern day German Social Market Economy could be considered exceptions but I doubt these can really be considered socialist.).

People keep saying: "This isn't true socialism." Well, then true socialism seems to be nothing but a pipe dream that in reality can't be implemented and hence should either be revised or replaced by a better concept.

<comment><USER110> Not sure it's a fair argument to exclude dozens of the wealthiest countries in the world because they own definition of socialism —that they practice— does not meet your imagined one.

The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.

<comment><USER141> By that definition France is a socialist country. I suppose you could say that to some extent but France isn't what one usually thinks of when it comes to real-world socialism. I think socialists in particular will argue against that notion.

Even worse though: Most totalitarian countries fit that description, too.

<comment><USER62> I think many American Republicans would consider France to be socialist.

And would view many other countries as socialist, if they have things like national medical insurance and free college tuition. Except China. China for some reason is viewed as comfortably capitalist, despite the pictures of Chairman Mao on the currency and at Tienanmen Square. And except Russia, whose authoritarianism is admired.

Talking perception here, not reality. The perception of people who used to be a marginal group of extremists but now have many people in positions of Governor, house of representatives, etc.

And unfortunately they now have a real shot at the White House in the personage of their tribal Duce (a pathological egomaniac whose politics are unclear and span all ends of the spectrum within any given time period).

<comment><USER142> Someone else being wrong (and a straw person at that) doesn't make you right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> _Email Opt-in_

This label isn't strictly accurate, since the checkbox is checked by default.

</comment><comment><USER143> I am Canadian and I cannot sign this due to the address form being confined to US addresses.

Just putting this out there for any future endeavors of this kind.

</comment><comment><USER144> Thread now in position 11 by upvote count

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER145> I say pardon him at this point, you'd be better off having him in America than somewhere in Russia being forced to leak further info for continued asylum

<comment><USER146> Snowden hasn't leaked anything since 2013. This is kind of a trifling point but it's one that the US government has intentionally misconstrued in the past. Snowden handed off his documents to journalists in HK and hasn't released anything personally. He doesn't have the capacity to release new material because he doesn't possess any of it anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER147> Well he was a patsy so pardoning him reduces the risk he will blow true story of the most successful increase in intelligence gathering capacity since WWII... So there's that. Pardon him for sure. And never doubt he's a patriot. But he doesn't believe in openness. He helped usher in a new age of secrecy. I think that's a good thing. I also think people should actually know the real.

<comment><USER147> The story of Snowden being a patsy is going to come out. It will be even more entertaining than the snowdengate tale act 1. But it will probably come out in 20 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER148> Fat chance ;)

</comment><comment><USER137> Admired The brave!!! Respect the braver!!! Snowden. Long live Snowden.

</comment><comment><USER149> Pardoning Snowden implies he did something wrong. apologizetosnowden.org

<comment><USER131> Pardoning Snowden implies he did something in violation of US law. If a pardon is a moral judgement at all, it is a judgement that what was done was _not_ wrong.

<comment><USER149> I'm aware. I'm pointing out that using the word "pardon" is pretty Orwellian given that in normal parlance it means forgive and thus implies fault.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER150> Please read this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold)

<comment><USER19> Care to make a point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER151> But he didn't just leak information concerning his homeland. He actually leaked information about allies of his homeland e.g. the UK.

I'm pretty sure that alone will ensure he won't get pardoned. It could cause one of the biggest diplomatic incidents in history between the US and UK. Particularly with Theresa May as PM - who has been instrumental for years in building up the security services powers.

<comment><USER44> The UK is even more one-sided totalitarian in their views on state surveillance, so you got a point there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER152> Snowden should be put on trial for committing treason. No matter how bad it is what he exposed. He broke the law[0]. What he exposed are policies of the United States by people put in power in a democracy and free country.

If you don't want that shit happening in your country, let the people in power know. Go on the streets. Millions of poeple are not happy with what is going on, but literally nothing changed. Sadly, American citizens and the West in general have been trained from a young age to be apathetic and those that have the audacity to fight back have been systematically beaten down. They rather create parallax websites with fancy countdowns than actually trying to change something.

When's the last time they've had to mobilize the National Guard because there was a protest? The entire American economy could collapse because of a giant banking scandal and people wouldn't even raise a fist in anger.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Criminal_charge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Criminal_charges)

<comment><USER153> > Snowden committed treason

The only people that behaved in a treacherous fashion are the one that are spying on you because for them you're just a criminal by default.

Furthermore he didn't commit treason, he didn't spy for a 3rd party country. He revealed to the world the scope of NSA spying and did everybody a big favor. There is nothing democratic with secret laws and spying. Today you cannot say you don't know and deny reality. But you can choose to ignore it... until the system turns against you. Today if you accept PRISM you become a willing participent and a slave to that system.

What you don't understand is one day, an irresponsible administration will come to power and use all this system for its own personal gain. There is nothing stopping that right now. It's funny how people get all worked up by Facebook censoring some insignificant content when they directly collude with the government to hand over data. So does Google, Yahoo and all big tech companies in US.

<comment><USER152> I completely understand what is going wrong and I assume you do too by your vivid explanation. Yet, you spend all your energy explaining it to people on the internet. What I don't get is, why don't you funnel that energy into making change? Everybody understands what is wrong about being permanently spied on, yet nobody does something.

Whether Snowded committed treason cannot be stated in one sentence or even a paragraph - I made a minor edit. He should be put to trial because he evidently broke laws and employee contracts with government institutions.

<comment><USER33> "yet nobody does something."

I contribute to Mailvelope now and then. I encourage my friends to use encryption. I'm honestly not entirely sure what practical things people are supposed to do? This isn't something where you round up a bunch of volunteers to go do a beach cleanup.

<comment><USER154> You can use Mailvelope! Or GPG/PGP. Use it to sign your mail. And do so using PGP/MIME, not text. PGP/Mime uses an attachment for the signature, and doesn't mess up the text with ugly code. Then put a small signature at the end of your mail explaining what PGP is, linking to Wikipedia, and link to your public key. As you use HTML, do this in a small font, 50% grey, and it won't get in the way. I do this since two years.

<comment><USER155> I tried implementing PGP on Thunderbird about 5 years ago, it was difficult. I've set up a mail server, web servers, etc.. Setting up PGP was complicated.

I'm surprised that message signing isn't built in yet, why isn't it? It didn't seem so hard to implement as a default.

<comment><USER154> Try again. Take the effort, and then try to promote it and help other people do the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER156> I don't think he should be pardoned. He claims that it's because he helped the public see the sinister plot of our government and their internal spying. Ok, fine.

So, should we have pardoned Jack Ruby (if he were alive) for killing the guy that killed JFK? No.

Why does Snowden deserve any different treatment. He still release confidential information. It's not like what he did can just excuse that fact. He exposed US spying, internally, externally, around the globe. He didn't just focus on the US... No pardon. Doesn't deserve it.

Just my opinion.

<comment><USER111> Ruby protected nobody, and thwarted a possibly avenue of information on the Kennedy assassination.

Snowden has done a service to the world, revealing the threats they're under (through both the NSA and any other entity which could exploit the weaknesses they use), and promoted a great deal of relevant and useful information into the public discussion. As you've just conceded.

Snowden may have broken regulations, and may have broken laws. But he served both the US Constitution, and the cause of Justice. Regulations, laws, _and the NSA_ , serve the Constitution and justice. A pardon is a means for correcting instances where laws fail to serve justice.

Your comparison makes less than zero sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER157> You can't pardon someone until they've been convicted. Snowden hasn't been tried and convicted and so can't be pardoned.

<comment><USER158> Not true. See Ford's pardon of Nixon.

<comment><USER159> To literally see the pardon:

[http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/speechgfx/ford- pardon1....](http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/speechgfx/ford-pardon1.jpg)

[http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/speechgfx/ford- pardon2....](http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/speechgfx/ford-pardon2.jpg)</comment></comment></comment>