Hacker News Reader

Comment by codex | Hacker News Reader

Does it set a good example to pardon someone who leaked classified information and endangered national security (i.e. treason)? Possibly. I would pardon them only if they had whistleblower status--i.e. the leaked programs were illegal.

Morally, perhaps we should wait to see whether the programs are ruled illegal before deciding to ask for a pardon. So far the administration and Congress (two out of three branches) have maintained that they are legal.

Politically, the administration would not want to undermine their talking points--that the programs were legal--by giving implicit whistleblower status to the leaker, thereby implying they were illegal after all.

View on HN

If Snowden would be free on low-cost bail while there's a real investigation into the legality of the program (review by Supreme Court seems to be the only way) I'd support postponing pardoning until after the investigation. But since the opposite will almost certainly happen (lengthy solitary confinement and no due process for Snowden, no investigation into the legality of the programs, etc.) I support an immediate pardon. Potential hero whistleblowers who risk their freedom for all of us (whether or not Snowden is one) shouldn't have to suffer so much.

someone who ... endangered national security

I haven't seen anybody make this claim and provide any reasoning or evidence to back it up.

On the contrary, if you were planning terrorist activities, you'd probably assume that the US government already had access to any of these services and instead use secure, encrypted alternatives. There's probably nothing about your behaviors that would change as a result of the existence of this program being revealed.

The point is that most people didn't assume that the government had access to the extent it did and how much was done domestically. That's why it has been such a big story.

So on the basis of this it's obvious that Snowden endangered national security. Not all terrorists are sophisticated remember e.g. Boston Marathon.

The widely accepted definition of 'national security' means the survival of a state. To say that Snowden endangered national security is to say that he took actions which could credibly precipitate the end of the purportedly democratic regime which is in force, and, for example, lead to an anarchy, dictatorship or a return to British rule.

I personally don't believe this to be true; if anything, he may have enhanced national (and international) security against a future shift to a higher and unpopular level of authoritarianism.

Certainly if the state has secret powers they have the power of surprise over some criminals and can prevent some crimes they might not otherwise, but it is folly to optimise for one thing (low crime) to the detriment of all others (personal privacy, governance by consent of the people, rule of law, balance of power of entrenched interests, due process rather than being targeted on secret evidence), and if the government is doing that, the public have at least a moral right to know.

And yet this highly sophisticated secret program neither prevented the Boston Marathon bombings, nor AFAICT, did it aid in any way in the manhunt following the bombings.

Without getting into a debate over the rest of your points, Snowden did not commit treason, and anyone arguing otherwise has no idea what they're talking about.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

You have to show "specific intent to make war" to convict someone of treason.

* http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/no_one_understands_what_trea...

Morally, perhaps we should wait to see whether the programs are ruled illegal before deciding to ask for a pardon.

Surveiling people without suspicion seems an obvious human rights violation - I have a hard time imagining how a court could legitimately rule that something like this is legal.

I wonder what it would take for you to stand up for something? I think you play it safe. Do you think standing up for something after it is too late is worth it?

The program is preempting privacy for security. Here preempting overstepping of the Constitution should be pardoned.

It is better to err on the side of protecting rights than protecting overstepping authoritarian actions. The latter needs to prove itself more thoroughly if rights are lessened.

Noone will stand up if there isn't some support for people that do things for our freedom. Is making this public really worth putting someone in prison who clearly was smart enough to make it in the CIA and NSA?

If he is wrong and it is now legal to do illegal search and seizure of papers (without oversight and judicial approval/warrants), then we should just kill off the 4th amendment and stop pretending. Giving up freedoms is easy, getting them back is hard and too late. I think you should reconsider.

>only if they had whistleblower status--i.e. the leaked programs were illegal.

It doesn't matter if the programs were legal or not. If a secret court came to a secret interpretation of legislation that permitted them to claim what they were doing was legal, that doesn't make it right.

See, even if it's perfectly legal.. if the wast majority of the population is against it, there likely is a problem with the law, not the majority of the population. At least that's the theory of democracy the last time I checked.

Ah, the partisan downvotes arrive sans open debate.

I strongly disagree with it, but it's been stated a few times that it's ok to use downvote if you disagree (1). This is certainly not a new thing around here...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

A reply giving the reason you disagree has the benefit of preserving both sides of the argument.

How was national security endangered? And I'm curious which of the two parties you think the "partisan" downvoters represent?

HN is over. I'm sorry to see your reasonable response treated that way but if you've been following the past few months you'd know this is now more of an echo chamber than ever. Groupthink rules the day. But anyone who would care seems to have left by now.

I think Snowden is deadly wrong, you people don't deserve to know anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com