NY Times: Snowden Has Done Country Great Service

[Guest Paragon]

In an editorial in today's New York Times, the paper refers to Edward Snowden as a "whistle-blower" who has done his country a great service. I happen to agree!

The Times acknowledges that in helping his country, Snowden may have commited a crime, but calls for leniency:

"Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community"

Let's hope this idea carries more weight each moment..

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

[AdamSmith]

The Guardian opines likewise. Must say that regrettably I find it difficult if not impossible to imagine the Obama administration's views on this "evolving" however.

Snowden affair: the case for a pardon

Snowden gave classified information to journalists, even though he knew the likely consequences. That was an act of courage

• Editorial

• The Guardian, Wednesday 1 January 2014 18.16 EST

In an interview with the Washington Post just before Christmas, Edward Snowden declared his mission accomplished. At first sight it seemed a grandiose, even hubristic, statement. In fact, it betrayed a kind of modesty about the intentions of the former NSA analyst. "I didn't want to change society," he explained. "I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself."

Mr Snowden through journalists, in the absence of meaningful, reliable democratic oversight had given people enough knowledge about the nature of modern intelligence-gathering to allow an informed debate. Voters might, in fact, decide they were prepared to put privacy above security but at least they could make that choice on the basis of information.

That debate is now actively happening. In a remarkable week before Christmas, a US judge found that the "almost Orwellian" techniques revealed by Mr Snowden were probably unconstitutional. A review panel of security experts convened by President Obama himself made more than 40 recommendations for change. The leaders of the eight major US tech companies met the president to express their alarm. Parliamentarians, presidents, digital engineers, academics, lawyers and civil rights activists around the world have begun a wide-ranging and intense discussion. Even the more reasonable western security chiefs acknowledge a debate was necessary.

Man does civic duty, and is warmly thanked? Of course not. Should Mr Snowden return to his homeland he can confidently expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and, if convicted like Chelsea Manning before him locked away for a very long time. For all his background in constitutional law and human rights, Mr Obama has shown little patience for whistleblowers: his administration has used the Espionage Act against leakers of classified information far more than any of his predecessors. It is difficult to imagine Mr Obama giving Mr Snowden the pardon he deserves. There has been some talk of an amnesty with NSA officials reportedly prepared to consider a deal allowing Mr Snowden to return to the US in exchange for any documents to which he may still have access. The former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller recently predicted such an outcome, though Mr Obama's own security adviser, Susan Rice, thought he didn't "deserve" it. A former CIA director, James Woolsey, suggested he "should be hanged by his neck until he is dead".

The first world war vintage Espionage Act is, like its British counterpart, the Official Secrets Act, a clumsy and crude law to use against government officials communicating with journalists on matters where there is a clear public interest if only because it does not allow a defendant to argue such a public interest in court. It is at least possible that, should he ever face trial, there could be a "jury nullification", where a defendant's peers acquit him even though technically guilty as in the UK in the 1985 case of Clive Ponting, a civil servant who leaked defence information. Such an outcome would be a humiliating rebuke to those bringing a prosecution.

Mr Snowden gave classified information to journalists, even though he knew the likely consequences. That was an act of some moral courage. Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan have issued pardons. The debate that Mr Snowden has facilitated will no doubt be argued over in the US supreme court. If those justices agree with Mr Obama's own review panel and Judge Richard Leon in finding that Mr Snowden did, indeed, raise serious matters of public importance which were previously hidden (or, worse, dishonestly concealed), is it then conceivable that he could be treated as a traitor or common felon? We hope that calm heads within the present administration are working on a strategy to allow Mr Snowden to return to the US with dignity, and the president to use his executive powers to treat him humanely and in a manner that would be a shining example about the value of whistleblowers and of free speech itself.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/01/snowden-affair-case-for-pardon-editorial

[TotallyOz]

I tend to think he is a hero and did the right thing. He seemed to uncover many things that may not have been good to share but in the end, the government should not be ashamed to do whatever it does.

[MsGuy]

... but in the end, the government should not be ashamed to do whatever it does.

I can't say that I recall anyone connected to the national security apparatus expressing any shame for their activities.

They do seem to be extraordinarily pissed off about having to talk publicly about it. Not the same thing.

[AdamSmith]

No doubt.

Feds steamed at New York Times Snowden editorial

By JOSH GERSTEIN |1/2/14 7:01 PM EST

politico.com

Federal officials are ticked about a New York Times editorial published Thursday, not so much over its call for clemency or a plea deal for leaker Edward Snowden, but for accusing intelligence agencies of intentionally violating the law.

Drawing the particular ire of Obama administration officials is the Times's suggestion that Snowden should be off the hook because he revealed that the government set out to act illegally on a broad scale.

"When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government," the Times's editorial board wrote in making the case for a deal to return Snowden to the U.S.

Some practices of the National Security Agency, such as the collection of telephone metadata in the U.S., may be ultimately ruled unlawful or unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, that's a far cry from justifying the Times's implication that officials set out to violate the law. In this case, officials repeatedly obtained authorization from 15 federal court judges for the metadata gathering.

Spokespeople for various government entities, including the White House, declined to offer an on-the-record response to the Times editorial. Some referred questions to the Justice Department, since the central theme of the Times editorial was about Snowden's potential criminal liability.

However, one government official speaking on condition of anonymity called the editorial "frustrating."

"There's absolutely no evidence any government officials or employees violated the law," the official said Thursday. "The piece is based on an absolutely inaccurate premise and that is that laws have been broken…Snowden broke the law and the people conducting these activities were doing so in compliance with the law."

To be sure, there have been reports of abuses by a small number of NSA employees or military personnel involving gathering of data on girlfriends and boyfriends or for other personal reasons. However, none of these cases involved the telephone metadata program and most or all related to traditional NSA signals intelligence from overseas.

Whether Snowden broke the law may ultimately be for a jury to decide. However, it seems quite possible to make a case for clemency or a plea deal for Snowden without asserting that officials intentionally violated the law.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/feds-steamed-at-new-york-times-snowden-editorial-180482.html?hp=l4

[TampaYankee]

I agree he did a great service.

He may also have done some real damage beyond exposing and embarrassing the US. I'm not in a position to know and remain to be convinced.

Real embarrassment is evidence that actions were ill-concieved. Exposure of capabilities weakens our intelligence efforts overall but overstepping by using them against US citizens is the price that must be paid for bad judgment and a free soceity.

[Guest Paragon]

The American public deserve to know what their government is doing, and I think our allies have a right to know if we are eavesdropping on their conversation. These are our allies, after all.

One wonders further how an employee of a subcontractor sitting in an office in Hawaii could access this information. Correct me if I am wrong, but that's how I heard Snowden gained access. If he could do it, any number of employees could, so how safe is our security anyway? If Snowden let us know of holes in it, that alone should deserve a pardon.

My guess is that Obama got elected and someone took him aside and said "Look, here's what you can do, and here's what you cannot do." He can't close Guantanamo and he can't question the military and especially the NSA. Our government must have people who can do things with computers and satellites and drones and God knows what else that are beyond Obama's capacity to understand. They sure are beyond mine. So if he can't understand them, he is likely not to even guess that they exist. The entrenched government runs it, not the president.

[TotallyOz]

The American public deserve to know what their government is doing, and I think our allies have a right to know if we are eavesdropping on their conversation. These are our allies, after all.

I totally agree. I see this is something good that has happened and the only reason we don't find out what occurs as much in the future as they will clamp down on the people that have info.