TIME: Former CIA Officer: President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Sep 16, 2016.

  1. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Imprison Obama. Pardon Snowden. Great op-ed by former CIA Barry Eisler.


    Former CIA Officer: President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden

    Barry Eisler spent three years in a covert position in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and is the author of 12 novels, including The Detachment

    http://time.com/4495221/pardon-edward-snowden/

    This week, Edward Snowden, multiple human rights and civil rights groups, and a broad array of American citizens asked President Obama to exercise his Constitutional power to pardon Snowden. As a former CIA officer, I wholeheartedly support a full presidential pardon for this brave whistleblower.

    [...]

    For this service, the government has charged Snowden under the World War I-era Espionage Act. Yet Snowden did not sell information secretly to any enemy of America. Instead, he shared it openly through the press with the American people.

    For this service, Snowden has been accused of having “blood on his hands“—the same evidence-free cliché trotted out every time a whistleblower reveals corruption, criminality or anything else the government would prefer to hide. That this charge is being aired by the very people responsible for wars that have led to thousands of dead American servicemen and servicewomen; hundreds of thousands burned, blinded, brain-damaged, crippled, maimed and traumatized; and hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners killed, is more than ironic. It’s also a form of psychological projection, or propaganda, intended to distract from where true responsibility for bloodshed lies.

    [continue]​
     
  2. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #2
    Presidential Pardons, at their best, are reserved for individuals who have faced justice; have served a significant term of their sentence, and have accepted or atoned for their crimes.

    None of the above applies to Edward Snowden.

    If Snowden had stood up and accepted legal responsibility for his actions, had been tried and convicted, and had served a reasonable amount of time in prison, I think you could make a very defensible case for a Presidential Pardon.

    But he didn't. He ran away. To Moscow. Where he, an individual with highly detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the NSA and America's intelligence operations, allowed himself to be debriefed by the Russian Security Services.

    If Mr. Snowden hopes to ever walk freely in the United States (or indeed any country on earth outside of Putin's Russia) he needs to come home and face justice. If he really believes that his actions proved a service to the American people, then he needs to make that case before an impartial jury of those people. I have no doubt that in that eventuality he would be provided with the absolute best legal defense available. I am sure there are thousands of wealthy individuals in this country who would contribute to his legal defense fund. And many highly skilled attorneys willing and able to take up his case. It would be, to use a somewhat shopworn cliche, the trial of the century.

    The longer he defers facing justice, the longer he will remain in the purgatory he has created for himself.
     
  3. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
  4. Jess13, Sep 16, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #4
    Presidents can pardon regardless of conviction or not, and whistleblowers don’t have to “atone” for their crimes. Snowden hasn’t committed actual crimes.

    All that you’re doing is repeating propaganda, as usual. Everything you just said is propaganda and lies.



    Yes, again: Everything you just said is propaganda and lies.

     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    In my opinion, the worst Presidential Pardon in recent history was Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. It ranks as one of the worst, sleaziest decisions Bill Clinton ever made.

    President Obama will not, under any circumstances, pardon Edward Snowden before he has surrendered to US justice. That simply would go against everything Obama represents and has worked for in terms of respecting the rule of law. It would set a terrible precedent for every individual entrusted with our nation's secrets.

    Snowden has numerous options available to him. His attorneys could negotiate any number of conditions prior to a surrender, including the conditions of his pre-trial detention, and the full extent of any charges to be levelled against him. He could negotiate a plea-bargain that would limit the maximum sentence he would face. And if he chooses to go to trial, he has every opportunity to either prove the charges against him are false, or he could argue that the laws he broke are unjust, or that the totality of the circumstances argue against a conviction.

    Which brings up the issue of Jury Nullification. It is technically, and legally possible for a Jury to refuse to convict an individual, despite having found that the accused did, in fact, violate the laws he is accused of breaking. The problem is, any suggestion that they do so usually results in the Judge declaring a mistrial.
     
  6. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #6
    Hoebama has had Snowden charged with Espionage Act of 1917 violations so that he can not defend himself. Hoebama has illegally spied on 280,000,000+ Americans daily for the past 7 & 1/2 years. Hoebama is 100,000,000+ times worse than Nixon. Snowden exposed that, so Hoebama hates Snowden. Hoebama promised to PROTECT whistleblowers but instead has maliciously targeted, charged and/or prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, than all previous POTUS’ in U.S. history COMBINED x2. I know that Hoebama won’t pardon Snowden, because Hoebama is a USA-hating, anti-American traitor. Hoebama is a useless bitch. But that doesn’t change the fact that: a) Snowden cannot return home charged as is and receive a fair trial; and b) hasn’t committed any actual crimes through his whistleblowing.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #7
    Oh really now?

    Can you point me to when Nixon faced justice? Stepping down from the presidency is not facing justice.

    Also, as a contractor Snowden was not privy to the protections of the whistleblower protection laws so can we stop repeating this ****ing nonsense?
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

    Kind of hard to face justice when you are pardoned for everything that may have occurred.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #9
    Exactly my point, thanks for the quote!
     
  10. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
  11. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #11
    That ran to China and is currently living in Russia?
     
  12. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #12
    for exposing the corruption, lies, and constitution-breaking behavior of our government.

    they want to charge him under the espionage act which is broadly defined as (paraphrasing) "giving information to the enemy of the US govt". Snowden provided the american public with information on their governments illegal activities. using this logic, the american public is the enemy of the govt.
     
  13. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #13
    Then fled to China and Russia where he was debriefed by their intelligence agencies.
     
  14. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #14
    any proof for that claim?

    also did you not watch the videos in Jess's post? he said he would come back and face charge if he could be given a fair trial, but under the act he wouldn't get one. i'm not really sure what side you are arguing on. also advocating that he should hanged is completely barbaric when he did something thomas jefferson would applaud him for no doubt.
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    That was bad though.
     
  16. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #16
    Had he not fled, I'd be on his side. He fled to hostile nations. He should be hanged and after word with Alanis Morrisettes Ironic playing ever so slightly in the background issued a pardon.
     
  17. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #17
    You hate Obama. Obama is illegally spying on you. Snowden exposed that. You hate Hillary. If Hillary is POTUS, Hillary will illegally spy on you the same and probably continue Obama’s trend of being worse than Obama as Obama is worse than Bush. Snowden exposed that. Snowden’s a TRUE patriot in the realist sense of the term. Snowden’s a true hero to the public. Snowden did what was his only option.

    Have you ever watched the Q&A I have posted a few times here, with NSA whistleblower Bill Binney, where he says that Snowden did it the right and only way that he could? I have roughly transcribed it, yes it is significant amount to read, still please do. Or watch the Q&A from the included timestamp.

    01:34:54-01:41:48


    Grove: “Bill, can you discuss some of the atrocities committed by the United States government against its own people, in relation to the loss of privacy?”

    Binney: “I think I would just say that they’ve gone to any degree to try to silence anybody who’s tried to expose any of this, in any way. Namely, the four of us from NSA: Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, and myself, who tried to discuss this internally with the Congress, as well as members of the Inspector General’s office in the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. And when we did that, why they [USG] came at us with everything they had, in terms of the FBI pointing guns at us. And also having the DOJ try to indict us on false charges several times—three times. In fact, between 2007-2009, the end of 2009, they attempted three times to do that. All of which we were able to stop because we had evidence that showed what they were doing and so they stopped it. Finally, at one point, the last time they said it, that our lawyers—we had a lawyer at the time—he came out and said that he’d been informed by the Department of Justice, they were going to indict us on a charge of conspiracy. Of course, I had the evidence for malicious prosecution of that case. So I called up Thomas Drake and I told him—I knew his phone was tapped by the FBI, so I wanted to make it clear what I was going to do if they did that [indict for conspiracy]. And so, I read all that information that I had accumulated on evidence of malicious prosecution, over the phone to Thomas, and I said ‘make sure your lawyers know about this because we can use this when we go into court.’ So that was the end of that conspiracy charge, and the next month later we got letters of immunity from the same Department of Justice that had tried to fabricate charges to put us in jail. So after that, why, to me, that was the last straw that told me my government is so corrupt there was not much left of it worth saving. So I had to do whatever I could to expose it and get it out to the people—the fourth estate, out to the public. And get outside of government [to expose it] because all they were going to do was cover up for the crimes they’d been committing.”

    Grove: “There has been a lot of talk that [Edward] Snowden, when he blew the whistle, that he actually was a “leaker” because he didn’t go through something called ‘[proper] channels.’ Can you explain to the audience how, after the Church Committee, the proper way to blow the whistle and disclose government malfeasance to the public, was set up?”

    Binney: “Yeah, especially for the intelligence community, the procedure was to the... The Church Committee set up the FISA court and the intelligence committees, as oversight for the intelligence community. And so, that was the path you had to take to do that. So if you had some complaint, you either had the Inspector Generals of the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice, or you went through the intelligence committees, all of which were the proper procedures to follow to file a complaint. Which is all that we [NSA whistleblowers] did, and that’s how they came after us, for that. And so, that’s what Snowden saw. He looked at our case—we were called the “ThinThread crowd” at that point [Note: ThinThread was the Binney NSA program that would have exposed the 9/11 plot, and 9/11 would never have happened. It was blocked by NSA leadership, who later morphed ThinThread into their Stellar Wind program for illegal domestic spying post-9/11]. He saw what happened to us, he also saw what happened to Thomas Drake: He got indicted and falsely charged. I mean, they fabricated evidence against him. They took papers that he had at his house, took them back—they were all unclassified, at the top and bottom, that was clearly marked. So all they did was draw a line through that unclassified statement there and then stamped it classified Top Secret or Secret, and then charged him with having classified material. Which meant that they were framing him: they were fabricating the evidence and framing him. That was still the argument that they were saying going into the court trial in 2010. They were still going to charge him with that, but the defense attorneys had hired [investigative journalist] James Bamford to do—to be a consultant for them. And James went out found almost all of the data that they were claiming was classified, that Thomas Drake had, was already on the web or out there in the public domain, put out there by NSA. So James took all that data into the court, gave it to Judge Bennett who was trying the case, and said ‘here is all the data they are charging with as being classified, that they already put out there in the public domain [themselves] as unclassified.’ The judge obviously got the very clear impression that they were framing him [Thomas Drake]. I mean, I felt that they should have been charged with that at that time—that’s a felony. I mean, they should have been disbarred; they should have been thrown out of the DOJ; they should have been barred from court certainly, from arguing anything in any of the courts. But none of that happened, all Judge Bennett did was read them the Riot Act and, you know, they went away and that was the extent of their punishment.”

    Grove: “You explain that there’s basically three different levels or three different sectors of places you could blow the whistle, in your position: You could go to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office; you could go to the Justice Department; or you could go to the Senate intelligence committee. Which of those three did you choose? Or did you explore all three options before [going public]?”

    Binney: “Actually, we went to all of them. But we went to the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Department of Justice Inspector General, the intelligence committee in the House, we even touched on some of the Senate side, we also talked to individual members of Congress that were not on those committees. So we took all the avenues that were available to us under the Constitution and also under the government regulations. And so, that’s what Snowden looked at and he said, ‘obviously, when you’re blowing the whistle on illegality and criminality, unconstitutional activity of the U.S. government, you can’t go through normal channels because all they’ll do is come back at you with all the force they have,’ which is what they did to us. That’s what he saw and that’s why he decided to do what he did [took the information to journalists to publish publicly].”

    Note: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), in August 2013 said: “Some people say he [Snowden] should have come to a congressman with this information, but there are actually probably 20-30 congressmen who already knew about this program, and if he had went to them I think we wouldn’t be having this discussion and he may already be in jail without the disclosure happening.”

    Start @ 5:45, Massie’s comment begins at 7:58.

     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #18
    His visa was pulled by the State Department during a layover in Russia, it was his intention to get to South America. The facts matter here.
     
  19. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #19
    The fact is that he fled to China and is currently living in Russia, it doesn't matter where he said he was going.
     
  20. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #20
    He “fled” to Hong Kong—to safely get the information to journalists. He then tried to make his way to South America, and as was pointed out to you above, had his visa pulled. Then, while in Sheremetyevo, Obama ordered European allies to force-down the diplomatic immunity protected presidential jet of Evo Morales. Obama trapped Snowden in Russia.

    Start 47:13; Comment 50:35

     
  21. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #21
    you'd be on his side...because he wouldn't get a fair trial. the same people who harp on and on about the constitution this constitution that, want him dead without a fair trial. hypocrisy at its finest.

    again do you have any proof he gave info to foreign governments?
     
  22. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #22
    Those whiners who harp on about the Constitution, obfuscate how Snowden upheld his oath to that Constitution. Whereas Obama and others violate the Constitution hundreds of millions of times daily.
     
  23. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #23
    He could have had his fair trial, but he fled.
    Proof that he gave info to foreign governments? Sure he's living in Russia.
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    oh please, you only hate Snowden because it made Obama look bad.
     
  25. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #25
    No, he couldn’t have. You’re repeating propaganda and lies. Shut off Faux “News” :rolleyes:
    Exactly.
     

Share This Page