Want Edward Snowden pardoned? You're in the minority, say pollsters Despite the best efforts of the internet, US citizens favor the filing of criminal charges against Edward Snowden, say researchers. A poll [PDF] of 2,069 American voters carried out by research firm Morning Consult found that 53 per cent of the public want Snowden to face trial, and those who support the whistleblower make up …
Hey, hey, hey! Take it easy - not all of us Texans are so ill informed, or supportive of gummit spying.
I believe Snowden to be a true patriot. He did the only thing he could do to expose the Constitutional violations (he was a contractor, wasn't protected by whistle blower laws, and tried to raise flags with his superiors).
I only wish that US lawmakers, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, would DO SO.
@AC
Of course it isn't accurate. Polls only reflect the opinions of those dumb enough to answer.
Yes, sort of like the pre-election polling Britain. If you employ people to phone others and ask questions during working hours, those who answer the phone will mostly be people that don't work. Hence the predictions for a Labour win when what happened in reality was rather different.
I have to say though, 26% of Americans answering the home phone in daylight hours want Snowden pardonned. I'm genuinely surprised it's that high, and while I may be the only one, I'm quite encouraged by that.
Were I Ed, I'd be staying in Russia, even after a pardon; It'd only take a single "patriot" to hold a grudge, and there's really no way, absent witness protection, that they could ever hope to keep him safe. Presidents have been shot.
>Aren't these self-same lawmakers supposed to carry out the will of the people...
>Bit of a bind if the poll is a genuine measure of public opinion.
When being a populist pedagogue: "following the will of the people."
When doing something nobody wants: "showing leadership" or "in the interests of national security."
Objective values and principles? Wassat?
These self-same "lawmakers" are supposed to manage defense and justice and nothing else according to the only piece of paper that gives them any legitimacy at all - The Constitution for the United States. Their proper name is "public servants".
I don't know anyone willing to pay some soulless geek to endlessly snoop through every detail of their lives.
Snowden is my hero but no one asked me to participate in any poll.
Sincerely,
David Parker
Many have a loose definition of what it means to be a 'whistleblower'.
Snowden isn't a whistleblower.
Maybe an FSB agent, if my Russian friend has it right...
Sorry but if we look at the facts, he took a job with the intention of stealing any and all documents he could because he thought the US Govt. was evil. The irony, apparently lost on many is that he's sitting in a city in Russia, which has a worse track record on Human Rights and spying on *everyone* than the US.
Where the KGB/FSB whatever they are calling themselves these days... makes the US Govt and CIA look like amateurs. (Which they are... )
...he took a job with the intention of stealing any and all documents he could... [Citation needed].
...is that he's sitting in a city in Russia... He's not in Russia by choice.
Erm what's left... nothing.
He's a hero (IMO) - a proper one, not one of those namby pamby media ones.
You realise he's stuck in Russia, right? The US cancelled his passport, meaning short of either getting an official pass from another country which he's travelling directly to (which would only happen if they were giving him asylum), the only place he can go to right now is back to the US. Yes Russia has a worse track record, but it was supposed to be a temporary stop before he moved on somewhere else
edit: Also, after what happened with Manning just grabbing anything (it was one of the main arguments against her in court), Snowden only grabbed information on things he thought were illegal. In the case of the NSA, the courts in the US apparently agreed in at least one case
"....He did the only thing he could do to expose the Constitutional violations (he was a contractor, wasn't protected by whistle blower laws, and tried to raise flags with his superiors)....." Not true in the slightest. Apart from the fact he had options for pursuing matters through the correct channels, Snowjob has long-since admitted he went for the job with the intent to gather classified information and "expose it" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-russia-cuba-flight-asylum-ecuador/2451403/), in deliberate breach of both his contract and the law.
Wonderful except for the fact that the scum that calls itself government has no business at all spying on we the people. The scum that calls itself government are totally inept if not complicit in every "terrorist" "attack" this country has experienced so far, including Pearl Harbor.
War is exceptionally profitable for those who build ships and planes and control "government". Iraq is oil rich, and Halliburton (among many other corporations) has collected billions from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As many suspected, Afghanistan is mineral rich as well as being in the path of desired oil pipelines out of Russia.
I am as patriotic as I can be and that is why I demand reform and limiting the federal government to the constraints of it's legitimizing boundaries - The Constitution for the United States. Socialism works for ants and bees - not we the people.
Sincerely,
David Parker
Where did they conduct the poll, that bastion of copyright sensibility called Texas ?
Actually according to the Dallas Morning News, Texans overwhelmingly want Snowden pardoned. It's the people that voted for Obama that want him in jail - how dare Snowden defy the Anointed One!
53 per cent of the public want Snowden to face trial,
Obama won in 2012 by 51% of the vote. Obama goes on national TV and says Snowden belongs in jail. Do you think those that idolize him will disagree? Do you???
By their admission they polled only registered voters who have to be much more attuned to the rule of law. That is what government is all about isn't it. Now go poll people who do not vote and see what happens. And the media types wonder why we do not pay more attention to them.
I sort of suspect the numbers against the rebels in 1776 would have looked similar to today's numbers against Snowden. Most folks would likely have been opposed to "those so-called patriots" who wanted to rebel against their rightful king and against those troublemakers in "that self-styled Continental Congress."
However, at times issues aren't settled by voting with one's mouth or pen. In some situations, people vote with their actions, possibly even putting their lives on the line. There were a lot of loyalists in America back then, but most of them didn't feel strongly enough to fight for their beliefs, whereas enough of the rebels felt strongly enough to go "all in" for what they believed and brought about the American Revolution. Snowden certainly went "all in" for what he believed and, as a result, has become most likely a permanent exile. It can be costly to make a stand, and most of us just don't have what it takes (I include myself in this number).
I'm morally sure that the seriously dedicated rebels who founded this country were a minority of the total population of America. Most folks probably just wanted all the commotion to end and things to get back to normal. They probably wished those rebels would just stop all their trouble-making. But Americans have a lot to thank those troublemakers for. I think we have a lot to thank Snowden for and should respect him. Yes, he's a lawbreaker. So were all the leaders of the American Revolution.
...that what Edward Snowden did is unquestioningly against the law. He wouldn't stand a chance in a US trial because of that simple fact. The real question here is whether what he did was right (I personally believe it was), and whether the law was being used to abuse the rights of the people (and not just US citizens). This has gone beyond what the judicial system can cope with, as it is bound to uphold the law (whether or not the law is morally right). To top it off, the US legal system doesn't give a stuff about what non-US citizens think, despite the fact that non-US citizens were likely the majority of the victims in this case.
I would call for US leaders to pardon Snowden, or at least for countries like my own (UK) to do so in the US's stead, so that he had somewhere other than Russia to go (should he want to) and so that some pressure would be put on the US to follow suit. Sadly, I doubt this will happen anytime soon.
Since you want to talk about the law...
There are two issues.
The theft of the data, and then the publication of the data.
The theft is illegal. No question about it.
He went in to the job with the sole intent of stealing any and all docs he could get.
Then you have the issue of publishing...
There was a SCOTUS case in 1971 that basically shielded the newspaper for printing Ellsberg's released documents during the Vietnam war. The SCOTUS decision was based on the probative value to the public ...
This gave some cover to Wikileaks, but to a point. Snowden? Not sure.
So anyone who calls Snowden a hero or a whistle blower has it wrong. Sorry, but what exactly did he blow the whistle on? Compare and contrast his actions with Ellsberg. Ellsberg had access to the information. Snowden didn't. So Ellsberg didn't break the law(s) by stealing the information. He didn't have to.
No data as been stolen. None. Not a single bit.
You can rest assured that the data's rightful* "owners" still have unfettered possession of every last bit of it. So you needn't worry your pretty little head about such things for a moment longer.
*since you want to talk about the law, you may want to look into that.
Sorry, what do you mean Ellsberg had access to the information and Snowden didn't? Snowden was given full access to all the data he copied by the US government when he was employed there, he didn't hack or bypass anything
Also SCOTUS kicked out the charges against Ellsberg because of government misconduct in preparing the case against him, not because of some decision about the probative value of the case
@My-Handle
what Edward Snowden did is unquestioningly against the law. He wouldn't stand a chance in a US trial because of that simple fact.
Agreed. And I think a lot of those rushing into the debate are doing so with far too much emotion and nowhere near enough reason. Snowden broke the law, for which there are a well advertised range of penalties. He did so knowing what those penalties would be.
The real question here is whether what he did was right
It is important to understand that the law is not concerned with right and wrong. It is not concerned with the provision of justice. The law is only concerned with itself - what is legal and what is not. Sad, but true.
Snowden is guilty. There is pretty much zero doubt about it, because he has more or less said as much himself. The real question then, is to what extent he should be punished, and after that punishment ends, how can he be protected from retribution.
Snowden acted in good faith. I believe he considered what he was doing to be the morally correct course of action, and he seems not to have attempted to leverage that into a higher standard of living for himself. The counterpoint is that there is no doubt he has caused his country a great deal of embarrasment and fiscal loss or expense.
We, the normal folk in the world, simply don't have enough evidentiary standard information to determine how much benefit or harm his actions have brought to society, to us, and so we're not in a position to weigh where on the punishment scale is appropriate to his actions. I think Ed is a good man, but he's no hero to me. He did what he thought was right, knowing he could never go home. Big balls, and worthy of respect. But there's no pardon coming, and I'm pretty sure he would never have expected there would be. Stay safe Mr Snowden, stay in Russia.
Sadly I can believe it. But then a lot of Americans believe the world is 6000 years old and evolution is less likely. Apparently a National Geographic survey found 77 percent of all Americans “believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth”, and according to a recent Harris poll only 68 percent of all Americans believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God.
If we simply took the majority's views as always right then the world is flat and slavery is something that is good for business so keep it going.
Sorry, but you can't argue that slavery is not good for business, just ask any economist.
Slavery is less efficient than capitalist wage-slavery. That's a well-supported economic thesis. So yes, you can argue that, and economists have.
But thanks for playing.
First.... who paid for the poll?
Second... how many who answered have actually read and understood what he released?
Every answer begets more questions... and this is no exception.
For the first question, pollsters want us to believe their polls to be accurate but depending on who's paying for the poll will point to which way the questions are slanted.. and yes, they are slanted.
As for the second... I have my doubts about the knowledge and wisdom of the American people and I am one.
Disclaimer: I'd be questioning the result no matter how this poll comes out. I also question the polls showing Trump and Hillary in the leads for the same reasons.
Not as I'd want to see him convicted of anything though.
Just we currently have two sides who haven't been forced to confront each other - and without confrontation, there's no decision, and we're left in limbo.
The NSA did something illegal Ed exposed, +1 Ed.
The NSA did something legal and secret Ed blurted, +1 NSA.
Tot up the scores at the end, and the loser gets a jail sentence.
I quite like the idea of the NSA director actually exposing himself to the same potential consequences.
The problem is that none of them will suffer any significant consiquences. Only little people get a thrashing. The "reptilians" * get away with a gentle admonishment and full pension, "lessons" are "learned" (the better to hide future wrongdoing) and it all carries on as before.
* no, I'm not David Ike - but it is a good shorthand IMO :-)
Actually, a trial wouldn't help. Snowden is guilty of misappropriating and making public confidential data. As the law stands, that is what he would be tried for, and the inevitable verdict would be 'Guilty, throw away the key'
Defendants are not allowed defences in terms of Public Good, or even that the documents revealed unlawful or criminal behaviour. The only evidence the court would consider is whether or not he took the data and whether or not he made it available to unauthorised persons (that's me and thee, basically). It would be a star chamber, and at the end Snowden would be locked away for the rest of his natural.
Yes, it stinks, yes it's a legal process specifically dezigned not only to protect, but to validate and enable the guilty.
Those interested in the subject should seek out a copy of Daniel Ellsberg's excellent HopeX talk on the subject of whistleblowing.
"....Didn't he make the information available to journalists who did that all on their own?" Yes and no. The sharing of such data with unauthorised individuals is the illegal act, whether they are journos or not. Snowjob himself is also alleged to have gained access to some of the data by fooling others into giving him their passwords, which implies he was also not authorised to have the data in the first place, which would seem an act of espionage. He also lost his claim to not having said anything to anyone except journos when he started doing video links to the whacktivist conventions and discussing his "revelations".
This post has been deleted by its author
Matt, Matt.
Delighted as we all are to see you back, applying your incisive wit and cogent objectivity to the issues which so vex those of us possessed of mere mortal abilities, really!
Snowjob? Runcible Loon? Describing HopeX as a Whacktivist convention?
This is not the sort of mindless grandstanding we expect from you.
Oh hang on, THAT Matt Bryant?
As you were.
Actually, jury nullification would be the ideal outcome, but you can be sure the jurors would be vetted to ensure they have no idea what the term means. As such, it's a good way to get out of jury duty, if you need to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
I think the last time I heard someone call me "Doper" was in middle school, sometime around the onset of puberty. Ah, childhood memories. I guess that reveals your mental age, if not your true one.
And of course we all know that America is that great bastion of love for privacy, freedom and dissent, no?
And how many still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to justify the U.S. invasion? Cheney keeps lying about it. It is our CIA torturers' control of mainstream media which misinforms conservatives. Snowden is now greatly appreciated by a majority world wide for his bravery in exposing this ever-expanding, illegal surveillance of all citizens and nations. Our NSA lied to Congress and continues to lie about its disgusting crimes against humanity.
"And how many still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to justify the U.S. invasion?...." Please go do some actual reading instead of rebleating whatever they have been spoonfeeding the flock - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
