Whitehouse fianlly responds to 'Pardon Edward Snowden' petition

[DeScruff]

Yes, he should have followed the laws made by the elected Congress and signed by the elected President.

Problem with the whole "elected" argument is that information of their actions aren't always released to the public.

How can I vote for or against something I don't know exists. Even if I did know of it's existence and it isn't public knowledge, how would I know if the candidates are for or against that policy?

If I may put things in terms that Logan from Tek Syndicate would probably use:

If the government created a top secret program to kill babies, nobody in the public would know to not vote for the people who are for killing babies because it's top secret.

Then the people who created this baby killing program could create laws that state "You do not talk about the Babby Killing Program". The public could have voted those people out, but since they didn't know the politicians were for this massively unpopular program, the people didn't vote them out.

Someone against the program could point out that the baby killing program was illegal to begin with, but because they pointed that out, they talked about the program and broke the law. You could argue that releasing info about the Baby killing program endangers national security because another country could do something like declare war against the Baby Killers.

With the way the laws are set up, even though the Baby Killing program was illegal the laws relating to the program are still valid, so you still can't talk about it.

 

[Centurius]

Problem with the whole "elected" argument is that information of their actions aren't always released to the public.

How can I vote for or against something I don't know exists. Even if I did know of it's existence and it isn't public knowledge, how would I know if the candidates are for or against that policy?

If I may put things in terms that Logan from Tek Syndicate would probably use:

If the government created a top secret program to kill babies, nobody in the public would know to not vote for the people who are for killing babies because it's top secret.

Then the people who created this baby killing program could create laws that state "You do not talk about the Babby Killing Program". The public could have voted those people out, but since they didn't know the politicians were for this massively unpopular program, the people didn't vote them out.

Someone against the program could point out that the baby killing program was illegal to begin with, but because they pointed that out, they talked about the program and broke the law. With the way the laws are set up, even though the Baby Killing program was illegal the laws relating to the program are still valid, so you still can't talk about it.

 

In this hypothetical program while you might not have known about the exact baby killing program the elected representative would have stated in his platform that he is not opposed to baby killing. On this specific case most elected representatives have made their position clear in the past on the conflict between security and freedom. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

If you believe he did not commit a crime then advocate for his return so he can stand trial and be judged by his peers. 

 

Stand trial?  Really?  With the charges he's facing, he's not even allowed to defend himself. 

 

 

 

The problem is, people want to put him on a pedestal. And maybe I would have been sympathetic if all he did was the Domestic Programs. But he didn't, he decided to be judge, jury and executioner on what people should know, without any real knowledge. The guy is "computer smart" but he doesn't have the background nor the education to fully understand what he gave away and how damaging it is.

 

And no, he isn't a medium, he is a traitor and should really be shot. What if one of those British Agents was killed? What then? You think anyone would care? Look how you are talking about him, even when shown proof that he did a lot more than people think. He put real people in danger, and that is something he "swore" he would never do. He got the job to steal the data, he stole the data and ran right to Assange. If I were a conspiracy theorist, one would probably assume he was a plant.

 

Firstly, there is no actual proof, just vague words and wild claims from government officials who are trying to cover their own asses.

Snowden carried the data on laptops without WiFi, using write-protected and regularly disposed SD cards with Tails, the most security-minded OS known to man. 

He taught Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras how to handle such sensitive data and prevent it from being intercepted by outsiders.  

 

Secondly, He didn't run to Assange, he contacted Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras.  Assange did indeed get in touch with Snowden after he was outed as the source of the leaks and pulled some strings in an effort to help Snowden get out of HongKong.

 

Thirdly, Snowden made it clear that he went through the files to remove potentially dangerous material, then handed them over to Greenwald and Poitras asking that they would also filter the information and follow the normal procedure journalists have to use for leaking classified information.  That normal procedure involves contacting the US Government to discuss the leaks and give the government an opportunity to discuss what specific info really shouldn't be leaked for security reasons. 

 

Fourthly, Snowden didn't "get the job" to leak information to Wikileaks or anything like that.  That site didn't even exist back then. 

He enlisted in the army in 2004, broke his legs during training, then went into the cyber security business. 

By 2006, the CIA offered him a job.  After a 6 month training they stationed him in Geneva in March 2007, indicating that his training started in September 2006 or earlier. 

Wikileaks was only founded in October 2006, so at least a month after Snowden started his CIA training. 

[Albatross]

Yes, he should have followed the laws made by the elected Congress and signed by the elected President.

 

Yes he should have. As I pointed out, that was ignored, he put real lives in danger. He put operations in danger and he had the British drop investigations because their targets found out about how they were tracking and gaining information. Its all in the link. But that is irrelevant really when you look at Case Law and in fact the Law itself. We are a Nation of Laws, if we start throwing them aside, what are we really in the grand scheme of things? He stole the data and decided to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner on who should know what. And guess what it did? Read the link! Unless you think its cool that he put lives at risk!

 

I already read that link, I don't need to again. There is absolutely no evidence to support these claims and if there were any present, why should we accept it from the people who lied to us, spied on us and want to hang a man for showing us the truth?

 

The people he needed to report to are the problem. No amount of reporting it to those he "should have" would have made any difference. They would have gotten rid of evidence or got rid of him, or deny or never even reveal it to the public. Snowden was performing a right and action that Americans should always practice.  And IF he returned it would be a farce; he would be condemned guilty without a trial, unable to defend himself or his reasoning because everything he could use would be "a danger to be said" and thus taking all of his options away.

 

What he did was incredibly important for this nation's security. I bet you only consider foreign threats as "threats" but the reality is Snowden showed us a world where the government does what it wants, whenever it wants and however it wants without ever telling you, the people as they should, what they are doing. That they can and are, more often than not lately, a threat to our security. It is a shame enemies decoded the leaked information and forced spies to retreat, but there will always be consequences to actions. That won't ever change. In that I would rather we not have spies in foreign countries but security against a potentially an even greater threat—our government.

 

The man did this nation a favor and he shouldn't face prosecution for it, not like what most of our government, civilians and politicians would have of him. He didn't betray us, he betrayed a band of thieves, liars, spies and corrupted politicians.

 

In this hypothetical program while you might not have known about the exact baby killing program the elected representative would have stated in his platform that he is not opposed to baby killing. On this specific case most elected representatives have made their position clear in the past on the conflict between security and freedom. 

 

That's sad. You think politicians would be honest with were they stood?

 

 

This is what trusting your government/authority gets you. Blindness.

 

[FakezZ]

Go listen to interviews with senators from the time, both republican and democrat. Language as direct as "I want him hanged" was even a few times

Fucking corrupted pricks...

[Misanthrope]

There's a bit of loss of focus on several technicalities here. The issue is that sometimes there is no legal, ethical or even morally acceptable way to bring about change or uncover and stop a greater, far more important injustice. I usually disagree with the prhase but this is a very clear cut case in which I'd say the end completely justified the means. 

 

I'd like to think more people in his position would answer first to their conscience as human beings and not to some misguided sense of patriotism but I guess that's kind of rare.

[BloodySinner]

Those defending Snowden, you MUST answer for this. Great guy that Snowden.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11673533/British-spies-removed-from-operations-after-Russia-and-China-crack-codes-to-leaked-Snowden-files.html

 

"MI6 has been forced to pull spies out of operations due to Russia and China cracking encrypted documents stolen by US whistleblower Edward Snowden"

 

I guess MI6 shouldn't have been spying on other nations then?

[Trik'Stari]

"deal with these issues here" is government speak for "being suicided in a jail cell"

 

I'll just leave this here..

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

Yes he should have just used the legal ways to raise his concerns, which means he could raise 0 fucking concerns legally so their position is that Snowden should have just shut the fuck up.

 

Typical politician bullshit: Cry about people upholding the law even in the face of evidence of them not upholding the fucking law.

This all the time, If we did what our governments did we'd be arrested.

[Trik'Stari]

This all the time, If we did what our governments did we'd be arrested.

One set of rules for the few, another more restrictive set of rules for the rest of us.

 

Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is talking about how bad things are going to get if this continues. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/29/dempsey-warns-world-risks-becoming-immune-to-crises/ (yeah, fox, I know)

[NateGSR117]

Yeah, two people before Snowden did exacly that and guess what happen to them? They got jail and shut up for whistle blowing even though they did it all legally, given this info I think there was no other option but to run. Honestly, if the government needs to stop B#tching about this because they know half the crap they do is probably agianst the constitution they themslevess made. (but you know it the government everything they do is legal /s)

[Admiral Naismith]

I'd like to see Rand Paul or Donald Trump win the next election in the US. I don't fully understand the US system but they seem like the best candidates.

[Cainn]

Reminds me of when i was a child. My mom or dad saying "If you would have told me, I wouldn't have gotten angry"

After I did something wrong. 

The government is full of shit. They would have paddled the living hell out Snowdens ass.

[E-Ro]

Its a good thing Snowden is in Russia. They are paradise of human rights, in fact Putin even said they have no system of mass surveillance in the Russian Federation. 

[Sharkyx1]

You know, there are candidates running for the 2016 Presidential Election that are against the mass government surveillance. The most notable is Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul.

If he's half the ass-hat Ron is i hope he never takes office.

[HarmFull]

Well if he sets foot on US soil, he's dead! Pardon or not!

[Miguel Batista]

The funniest part is when you read an intervuew to tge current leader of isis and he thanks guantanamo for placing all major players in the middle east in one place where they could coordinate... Yeah Edward Snowden is to blame for lack of security

[Toddwjp]

The only impact of this appears to be could try having to pull there spies out of other country's, going to point out this is hypocritical as fuck as many of them make spying illegal