americans-for-liberty • proposal by mike

1/6

This vox by mike on behalf of americans-for-liberty is endorsed by 5 of them and denied by 1.

Clemency for Snowden! He shined necessary light on unconstitutional & antidemocratic government actions in the only meaningful way possible

Reference

Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower Considering the value of his leaks and the N.S.A. abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden should be offered clemency or a plea bargain.

Bloc Replies▶ • Member Comments (11) • Respondents • Share Share • Flag

Discussion among the americans-for-liberty.

bboyatwork • It is indubitably apparent that Snowden and all other whistle-blowers deserve clemency. I mean...that's the least we can do, when those who intentionally erode the fragments of democracy we have left for personal gain, seem to have complete immunity behind their Great Wall of Money! 10 years ago
lovejoy • I wonder what the plea deal is going to look like for Snowden in exchange for clemency. Hmmm...You may come back to the country and face reduced charges, but please please stop leaking information that further indicts the NSA and further makes the US look like a surveillance state...(even thoug applaud Snowden for the actions he took. He opened the eyes of many Americans and made us realize that we need to constantly question our government and keep our ears open to not just the mainstream news, but also various other independent news sources. That we as Americans should as one commentator on another article mentioned “Stop electing officials who A) voted to expand surveillance laws, B) continue to stand in favor of them under a shroud of state secrets and C) put pressure on the White House not only to adopt its own commission’s recommendations, but expand them vastly and dismantle the bulk of what we now know the NSA does. This is wrong. We know how to do this the right way. Let’s!” 10 years ago
lovejoy • pressed enter to soon and accidentally cut off my sentence. I feel Snowden has many more revelations and quieting him with the prospect of clemency is a crime within itself. 10 years ago
mike • Great point about clemency preventing further secrets from coming out. It would be bad, but what I'm most upset about is the antidemocratic lack of oversight for all these programs. If the public wills it, we can elect leaders who into those positions that are privy to all antidemocratic programs (not just those that Snowden unveiled) and institute checks against them. 10 years ago
tom-jjbt • The NSA was out of control and Snowden’s actions are bringing about needed changes. Perhaps the way he did it was not the best but what would you have done in his place? Brought your concerns to your supervisor? Yeah, right. Our government can use this as an opportunity to correct itself. Unfortunately that is about as realistic as Snowden reporting the illegal spying to his supervisor. Snowden has not received money or power from his actions. So why did he do it? A responsible citizen disturbed by his findings within an irresponsible government agency? Sounds about right. 10 years ago
tabularasa • I am in full support of Snowden's decision to leak valuable classified information to the public. On the other hand, I do not think he should be offered clemency for the crimes he committed. Even if the information leaked has 'shined necessary light on unconstitutional and anti-democratic government actions' as suggested in this bloc, let those actions be investigated and handled by the justice department so that the hand of crime and punishment may be meted out. Snowden was fully aware of the gravity of his actions and is now living in and seeking protection from one of the most democratically depraved nations in the world. I would be in full support of the clemency option had he remained in the United States and accepted his punishment as a form of civil disobedience. Unfortunately, he has sought refuge in a nation that is the epitome of everything that Snowden was supposedly trying to reveal about the United States and its intelligence community. 10 years ago
mike • tabula, I think where we might split is whether we are obliged to accept punishment of unjust laws. Our founding fathers didn't, hence the Revolution. I believe laws criminalizing revelations of secret, unconstitutional, antidemocratic government acts are unjust. Antidemocratic acts (such as those that infringe on civil liberties without meaningful oversight and are, by nature or legal order, undetectable by the victims, and subsequently make the government aware of the the private matters of citizens) degrade the power of the people) invert the inspiration of democracy, that government be a dumb, inert machine responding to and enacting the will of the people. Instead they allow government to become self-serving, abusing its privileges to allow it to resist change and the public will. Not revealing such acts is as antidemocratic as the acts themselves. (cont'd.) 10 years ago
mike • That said, I don't believe one should be obliged to accept punishment under unjust laws, particularly when they criminalize the preservation of our democracy. That is about as unjust as it gets, but to make my point, consider an exaggerated scenario. Say it happens to be a crime to pay for someone else's medical expenses. There is a (totally unjust) statute that criminalizes this and mandates a death sentence. Given the means, is it right for someone who commits this "crime" to stick around so the blind eyes of justice can order his death? Our democracy is far from perfect. Sometimes we have to take shortcuts to ensure justice is upheld. Snowden deserves such a shortcut, to come home to the democracy he is trying to save. 10 years ago
mike • (Apologies, all sorts of typos in my second-to-last comment.) 10 years ago
tom-jjbt • An article in today’s LA Times adds the perspective of time to the “theft” and revelation of documents regarding illegal government activities. In 1971 a group of activists broke into an FBI office in the Philadelphia area. They removed, and released to the press, documents that proved, “…the FBI conducted an illegal spying operation that included blackmail, opening of personal mail and forging documents, with the aim of disrupting student antiwar groups and black civil rights organizations… The revelation led to congressional hearings and reforms that scaled back the government’s freedom to spy on U.S. citizens.” The FBI’s website now acknowledges that the program was “rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging 1st Amendment rights and for other reasons.” http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-burglars-20140108,0,7213414.story#axzz2ppsI8Elt 10 years ago
mike • Great read. If the FBI can admit the criticism of it was "rightful" (i.e. "conforming with justice, law, or morality") then it stands to reason that any necessary (and non-violent) disobedience that brought about that criticism should be viewed with leniency. Criticism of the NSA's overly-secretive, above-the-law (at least in spirit if not in letter) culture seems at least as "rightful" to me. 10 years ago