GregHowley.com

The Ed Snowden Petition

August 3, 2015 - -

A couple years back, in June of 2013, someone created a Whitehouse.gov petition to pardon Edward Snowden. I was one of the 167,955 people who signed it, as I do feel strongly that the American people deserved to know what their government was doing, and that the information would never have come to light by any less drastic means.

This past week, Lisa Monaco finally responded to the petition on the White House's behalf with a statement that basically said "Yeah. I'm sorry you feel that way, but he's a bad bad man and he won't be getting a pardon." I'm not the most well-spoken or the best educated guy out there, but even I can pick lots of holes in the response.

Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument as to how the subset of documents that have been released have harmed national security. What severe consequences are you referring to? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Instead of constructively addressing these issues..." To my understanding, Ed Snowden brought concerns to his superiors more than once and was shut down. It seems fairly clear that the chain-of-command path was closed.

He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.

Seriously? He's stated more than once that he'd be willing to return to the United States to face charges if he was guaranteed a public trial. But the government won't allow that, I believe because of the espionage act. The public has a huge interest in this case, and it seems like all the confidential material that might come up is already public. A secret military tribunal would never be a fair trial, and Ed Snowden is smart enough to know that. The guy deserves his day in court, in full view of the American public. From where I sit, the court of public opinion has already judged him innocent, not to mention an effing hero.

CitizenFour should be available for rental through Netflix within a few weeks. I'm going to watch it.

Comments on The Ed Snowden Petition
 
Comment Mon, August 3 - 4:19 PM by Truther Guide
You are wrong on the facts. No one accused under the Espionage Act of 1917 has ever been tried by a military tribunal, which is designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime. On July 23, 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated in writing:


"If he returns to the United States, Mr. Snowden would promptly be brought before a civilian court convened under Article III of the United States Constitution and supervised by a United States District Judge. Mr. Snowden would receive all the protections that United States law provides to persons charged with federal criminal offenses in Article III courts. In particular, Mr. Snowden would be appointed (or, if he so chose, could retain) counsel. Any questioning of Mr. Snowden could be conducted only with his consent: his participation would be entirely voluntary, and his legal counsel would be present should he wish it. Mr. Snowden would have the right to a public jury trial; he would have the right to testify if he wished to do so; and the United States would have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. If convicted, Mr. Snowden would have the right to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_07_13_attorney_general_letter_to_russian_justice_minister.pdf
 
Comment Mon, August 3 - 4:55 PM by Greg
Thanks for the info. I always appreciate a contrary opinion, and I appreciate the citing of a reference. (I\'m adding the link manually to your comment) I\'m going to look further into this when I have time to try to find the article(s) I read that seem to contradict this.
 
Comment Tue, August 4 - 10:55 AM by Greg
This is the article I'd read: Council of Europe Calls on U.S. to Let Snowden Have a Fair Trial
U.S. government officials have repeatedly said that Snowden should return home to face the consequences of his actions. Snowden should “come back, be sent back, and he should have his day in court,” said National Security Advisor Susan Rice on “60 Minutes” in December 2013.


But as Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and others have pointed out, the administration has previously argued that disclosing details of Espionage Act cases further risks national security, so the defendant can’t explain why he did what he did. Military whistleblower Chelsea Manning faced the same conundrum during the summer of 2013. Her entire defense was ruled inadmissible until sentencing. Manning is serving 35 years in prison.
 
Comment Tue, August 4 - 1:53 PM by Truther Guide
Neither the Council of Europe article nor the blog by Trevor Timm to which it links says anything about a \"secret military tribunal,\" which you falsely suggest Snowden would face. The problem is that you, like Snowden himself and his toadies The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation, demand to set the ground rules for his trial. If murderers and rapists were allowed to do that, there\'d be none in prison. \"The guy deserves his day in court, in full view of the American public,\" you write of Snowden. This, however, is a smoke screen. \"From where I sit,\" you add without documentation, \"the court of public opinion has already judged him innocent, not to mention an effing hero.\" Why should an effing hero stand trial at all—even on his own terms, which would be rigged to find him innocent? That\'d be a farce and a waste of taxpayer money.
 
Comment Thu, August 6 - 11:09 AM by Greg
The ground rules that I (and I think they) would like to set are \"fair\" and \"public\". That\'s all I think anyone is asking, and I\'d like to think that all trials in the U.S. should meet those criteria.

I\'ll admit that my mention of a \"secret military tribunal\" wasn't thought out at all, and was baseless. You\'ve won that point.

But as soon as you said “toadies”, you began to sound a bit hysterical.

When I mentioned the court of public opinion, I was merely referring to peoples' opinions, not any kind of actual trial.

Nobody is asking for a farce trial. My primary assertion here is that the American Public deserved to know what our government was doing. This is the very thing that George Orwell\'s 1948 cautionary tale warned of.
 
Comment Thu, August 6 - 12:16 PM by Truther Guide
I know what \"court of public opinion\" means, and that\'s why I challenged your lack of documentation. If you can cite a comprehensive, scientific sampling of American public opinion asserting in the majority that Snowden is innocent of the three charges brought against him by the U.S. Department of Justice, please do so. I doubt most of my countrymen are that gullible. As for a fair and public trial, that\'s precisely what Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of the federal government, guaranteed in writing. It\'s Snowden who refuses to stand for such a trial because he doesn\'t want to risk so much as a day in jail. He is, after all, an effing hero. He is above the law.