It’s Time to Let Edward Snowden Come Home

[kpete]

Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Robert Reich

Yesterday the Senate approved legislation curtaining federal government’s sweeping surveillance of American phone records, and President Obama signed the measure hours later. “Today the American people are now safe from the federal government collection of their personal data,” said Sen. Mike Lee, of Utah, one of the bill’s chief Republican proponents in the Senate (Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders sought even more limits on the NSA).

But it seems doubtful any supporter of this legislation will credit the individual who, more than any other, made it possible: Edward Snowden. It was Snowden’s 2013 leaks about the secret bulk collection of phone records that turned public opinion against the National Security Agency’s hidden practices -- eventually pushing Congress and the White House to take yesterday’s action. Since Snowden’s leaks, the Administration has also vowed more transparency in the scope of intelligence gathering, and has declassified executive orders and legal opinions that revealed the scope of the government’s Internet and phone sweeps. Meanwhile, high-tech companies have been allowed to disclose more about national-security requests for personal information. And officials say they’ve stopped spying on foreign leaders of friendly allies.

Without Edward Snowden’s civil disobedience, none of this would have occurred. Shouldn't he now be allowed to come home?
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/photos/a.404595876219681.103599.142474049098533/1008683575810905/?type=1&theater

............

JUNE 3, 2015
It’s Time to Let Edward Snowden Come Home
BY JOHN CASSIDY


.............................

As Snowden intended, the primary impact of the leaks was on political debate inside the United States. Based partly on the information that Snowden released, a federal judge, Richard J. Leon, ruled in December, 2013, that the N.S.A. had violated the Constitution, calling the bulk-data-collection program “almost Orwellian.” That same month, a panel of experts appointed by Obama issued a report calling for some restrictions on the powers of the FISA court and for an end to the N.S.A.’s bulk-data-collection program, which, the panel said, “creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty.” Led by the Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, and the G.O.P. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, of Wisconsin, a bipartisan effort emerged to rein in the N.S.A., which Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of Patriot Act, accused of misusing and overstepping the powers that Congress had granted to it. The newly passed legislation is an amended version of the original bill that Leahy and Sensenbrenner put forward in the fall of 2013.


To repeat, none of this would have happened without Snowden’s intervention. Doubtless, the intelligence agencies are pressing the White House to stick to its hard line about prosecuting him, on the grounds that dropping the charges, or making some sort of plea bargain, would encourage other leakers. But that is a self-serving argument, and it doesn’t stand up to inspection. In a free society, we want whistle-blowers who have persuasive evidence that great wrongs are being carried out to come forward and tell us about them. The President has argued in the past that Snowden could have taken his concerns to his seniors, and that he would have been protected by an executive order affording protections to whistle-blowers in the intelligence agencies. The notion is risible. As the Times editorial board pointed out last year, the executive order that Obama was referring to didn’t even apply to government contractors like Snowden.

Americans understand that they live in a world that contains people and organizations intent on doing harm to the United States, and they are willing to grant the federal government some intrusive powers in order to protect the country and its citizenry. But they also want reassurance that the authorities aren’t monitoring the every move and communication of ordinary people who have nothing to do with terrorism or any other form of wrongdoing. In the words of the high-level panel of experts appointed by Obama, “Free nations must protect themselves, and nations that protect themselves must remain free.”

After 9/11, for a variety of reasons, some of them eminently understandable, the trade-off between security and liberty tipped too far in the direction of intrusion and authoritarianism. Historians will record that Snowden’s leaks helped, at least somewhat, to right the balance. At great risk to himself, he stood up to the immensely powerful system for which he worked, and cried foul. Rather than seeking to incarcerate Snowden for decades, which was the fate that met Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks whistle-blower, the U.S. government ought to be seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers that would allow him to return home and carry on with his life.



MORE:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/its-time-to-let-edward-snowden-come-home



.............

[Bohunk68]

1. Way past time.

[ladjf]

2. I agree. But, I don't think it will ever happen.

He has defied the "system". They will make him pay by making him an example of what happens to those who buck the system.

[newfie11]

3. If I was him

There is no way I would trust this government.

[sabrina 1]

18. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe ten years from now, but having heard the threats of murder from

a CIA guy on Fox, I doubt it would be safe for him to return here.

[Renew Deal]

4. He can come home any time he wants

And then he should serve his prison time like any traitor that steals state secrets and runs to foreign enemies.

[-none]

9. So you approve of the surveillance state in total violation of the 4th Amendment?

[Renew Deal]

10. They are separate issues.

Once crime doesn't excuse another. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[-none]

12. You are telling me exposing a crime by our government, a crime against the Constitution yet,

is in itself a crime?
Snowden tried to go through channels set up for reporting things such as this. He was ignored.
To bring it home, if I find out a local cop is setting people up so he can "solve crimes", I can't report him because because that person is working for the government?
Up until recently, that was not how things worked. Reporting criminal activity, even by our government, should not be a crime in itself.

[randome]

22. Snowden SAID he tried to go through channels. He said this months after skipping the country.

Which sounds exceedingly like trying to cover his ass after the fact.

He exposed no crimes, just something you and he don't agree with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Johonny]

11. Pretty much, without a pardon he'd be crazy to come back.

It isn't the information he gave that DU is generally favorable of knowing, but the other stuff that we aren't that keen on that will damn him. He is a mixed bag and there is still stuff he gave away that those with need to known, know, that we don't. There is also the timing of the event linked with Russia invading the Ukraine that leads to a lot of more questions about motive... I think Snowden is smart to not come home. It is simply impossible not to prosecute him sans a pardon.

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. He should get a medal, not a prison sentence.

[potone]

40. I agree.

He deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor. I simply do not understand the people who label him a traitor for revealing the fact that the government was violating the Constitution and infringing all of our rights, not to mention spying on the heads of government of countries that are our closest allies. How not to win friends and influence people.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Since Snowden claims he accessed my private information without a warrant in violation

of my fourth amendment rights. He has also violated the espionage act along with theft. Why should we praise someone who said he accessed information without the proper warrants?

[-none]

14. The people Snowden worked for had already acquired that information without the proper warrants.

Snowden exposed the crimes of a certain segment of our government. Without Snowden we still wouldn't know the extent of our government spying on us, its citizens.
This so-called Freedom Act really has not changed much, if anything. It is still business as usual.

[Thinkingabout]

16. The NSA had warrants, let's not overlook this fact, Snowden did not have a warrant,

In violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[-none]

17. Those "warrants" were from courts especially set up to rubber stamp the requests.

They were not from any normal court or judge. Snowden did not need any warrants. He was trying to expose wrong doing and was rebuffed when going through channels. Snowden was and is a whistle blower.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Where was Snowden's rubber stamp warrant?

Yes, Snowden was a whistleblower, on himself. I listened when Bush said they was collecting records in 2006, Snowden did not tell anything new but his violation of the espionage act and he was a thief.

[Comrade Grumpy]

26. "Snowden did not tell anything new." Which is why Congress just changed the law, right?

[Thinkingabout]

27. Where is his warrant?

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. . Where is his warrant?............ DERP

You get a 20 on this leap in logic

Yes he was after your important posts, photos and e mails and controlled both agencies. the NSA and a private agency Boz Allen.......geez........

[Thinkingabout]

32. Cease with the name calling

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. Your logic and arguement are derp

Not you.......

[randome]

34. Well, if Snowden's fear is that the NSA COULD have been abusing their communications...

...it makes sense to be afraid of Snowden, as well, right? Because he COULD have been abusing his access.

Although frankly, I never believed he could "spy on the President", as he claimed. I don't think he ever had access to anything but a Sharepoint drive.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. Well arn't you special?

making up stuff as you go along.

[hughee99]

23. Did the NSA have warrants to allow workers to cyberstalk their exes? n/t

[randome]

28. No large organization is without its abusers. Those discovered in the 'LoveInt' scandal...

...were reprimanded or fired. That has nothing to do with Snowden or the NSA's responsibilities. It was abuse of authority that was dealt with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

29. Okay, but they prosecuted those who they caught doing it, right?

(hint: I already know the answer)

[randome]

30. I think some were reprimanded and others fired, IIRC.

Abuse of authority can be handled in many different ways.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

41. But NONE went to jail. They all violated people's 4th Amendment rights, but you seem to be

suggesting that one, and only one, person actually go to jail for it.

You are 100% right that abuse of authority can be handled in many different ways... sometimes what happens is you go after the person who exposed it and threaten to throw them in jail.

[Ichingcarpenter]

35. Those discovered in the 'LoveInt' scandal... ...were reprimanded or fired

the worst administrative sanction handed out was "a reduction in pay for two months, a reduction in grade, and access to classified information being revoked". One case was forwarded to the Department of Justice, which however declined to prosecute.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT

[randome]

38. Then I recall incorrectly, which means I should have said IIRI.

So what? You want everyone associated with the NSA to get thrown into jail? Good luck with that. It was discovered, admitted to and handled. Just as happens with every law enforcement agency in this country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. well there you go again

on your should have said and your defense of injustice.

[hack89]

6. Nobody is stopping him from coming home right now. nt

[on point]

7. With a full and complete pardon (like Nixon's). Plus the Medal of Freedom

His courage in defense of the country and Constitution deserves no less.

A real hero.

[riderinthestorm]

8. K&R nt

[pa28]

13. Time for the administration to man up and make a clemency offer.

Yes, it will be embarrassing but they are ending up squarely on the wrong side of history with Snowden.

[randome]

15. The only change in the metadata program is that searches will now be done in real-time.

Making the process much more prone to hacking and interception and telecom employee malfeasance. So Snowden has not really accomplished anything. Which is why Russia welcomes him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. We need Snowden and more like him more than ever.

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. At least let him travel to other countries

without being arrested by US agents

Let him go to Ecuador.

[LittleBlue]

21. K&R

[bigwillq]

36. Let it Snow!

Bring Snow Home!

[Hekate]

42. Yes it is