A Response to Your Petition on Edward Snowden

But it's not just that.

The deliberate activities to undermine, weaken, and even ban encryption and the very foundations for secure communications is just plain dirty. It's clear that the thrust of these programs was never the best interest of the public, but furtherance of espionage and surveillance.

But what is absolutely beyond the pale is the the deliberate construction of a wall secrecy with full cooperation of secret courts hidden behind a wall of lies with minimal oversight. This is not the functioning of a government that is trying to balance the rights of its citizens against security. It's a blatant attempt to construct an inner institution alien to democracy and alien to every single principle the United States was founded upon.

The endless prosecution of whistleblowers is one more thing. It's shown the government as a cabal who will use every weapon in its arsenal to fight those who would do anything to expose how corrupt and self-serving it's become.

Don't tell us to trust you. Why should we? We have no mechanisms to control or even influence this behemoth anymore.

Do they really think that Snowden would have made even a dent holding a sign in front the of White House or appearing on a news program? Seriously? Do they really think he would have _ever_ faced a trial by a jury of his peers?

> Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.

Yes of course he has.

> 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.

Has it? Has it really? Where's the proof of this?

> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. 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.

He tried the official route a number of times and was readily ignored, remember? Given that the NSA's actions were deemed unlawful, his actions were in the public interest and he deserves protections as a whistleblower.

However the people aren't fucking stupid. We know all he will face if he returns home is life in prison. At best.

> We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address.

Hmm yes. All those civil libereties groups, charities, foreign businesses and allied politicians you spied on sure are dangerous. Got to keep them in check lest they attack America with their ball-point pens!

My translation of this entire response;

"We have heard your voices and grievances and honestly couldn't give two shits about what you think. You have no power here."

The entire Snowden affair reminds me very much of Daniel Ellsberg. At the time Ellsberg was condemed by many (especially in the military industrial complex) as a traitor but now I think that just about everyone believes that Ellsberg did a good thing for our country and society.

I think that history will look kindly at Snowden - Lisa Monaco and President Obama will be on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue. I personally believe that we can have an effective intelligence force that acts in accordance with international law and protects our rights of privacy and due process of law. The overreach by those running our intelligence operations smells like a power grab that is not in the best interests of American citizens.

I would be criticised for being really extreme, but I would go ahead and say that on a subconscious level, the govt has instilled more fear in people than the terrorists.

"Come out and fight like a man!"

The fact that someone thought this kind of response is appropiate in any way means one of two things:

1. They think the american populace is irrelevant and they can flip them the bird unscathed.

2. They think they have substantial support by morons making up a majority of their populace who applaud that kind of response.

of course, whether the whistle blower actually turns him or herself over to such torture has absolutely no bearing on the constructiveness of the debate itself. that argument is merely a fascist ad hominem. something i could easily imagine Putin using, for example.

it's obvious exactly what kind of "constructive debate" on surveillance the US government wants - none.

How do you do this when secret courts can keep you silenced?

Government lecturing us on proper civil disobedience is ironic to put it very mildly.

Then they call for him to come back, and act like a fair trial is even possible.

I don't think there's anything Obama can do short of a complete pardon to fix this.

If we want a real resolution, I think we'll need wait until after 2016.

I wonder when the US state department started approving messaging like that about Russia.

Secret courts, gag orders, free speech zones... How exactly does one speak out?

> 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.

A jury of his peers? You really want me to believe you wouldn't boot any of his actual peers out of jury selection?

Implying Snowden is "hiding" when he's given up his family, home, and a nice paycheck is the most disgusting, cowardly thing to say.

What a joke our government has become.

As far as the claim of "Hiding behind an authoritarian regime." I'm sure he would have loved to take refuge in a free country, but so far it looks like they are all run by cowards.

There seems to be a false idea in our country that civil disobedience demands martyrdom.

They guy sealed his own fate when he made himself an enemy of the state, and I fear he will never get to set foot on his homeland again. One day, I hope he will be nationally recognized for his service to his people. In the meantime, the drastic divide between the aims of the government and the aims of the governed makes me grow ever more worried that we have dark days ahead of us.

And this:

> Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences ...

"Steal" makes no sense as a description of what Snowden did. He didn't delete digital information, he just copied it. Everything that Snowden has is still with NSA. It seems this official response was written to appeal to non-technical people who are easily convinced by well-crafted government speech.

(Note: It had the minimum response signatures within a very short time period, too)

Thanks for writing something 2+ years ago, here's some talking points based on our current administration objectives.

> "As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves"

> "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."

> "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address."

There is nothing new here. From a different age, we had this observation from another power hungry man:

"The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

-Hermann Göring

The U.S. constitution contains some strong protections against this road to fascism, but many have been eroded or subverted over time. Our government's design is intentionally inefficient, its members supposed to change regularly, and our court system is insular and slow for a reason. But these protections were created prior to the era of mass media, and now fear can be used as an even more powerful tool for control than when the country was founded.

I suspect that in the long term, even stronger hedges against totalitarianism will be needed. Democratic republics work well when the voting public is informed, patient, and aware of history. If you can whip them into a fervor with fear mongering, make them forget the past, and make quick emotional decisions, then instead of a nation of citizens you have a troop of apes--far easier to control.

Not withstanding this late, clueless response to the petition, Obama's only real way of not going down in history as the "Peeping Tom President" is to pardon Snowden before he leaves office.

Not sure what I was expecting.

Why would Snowden come back when he can't make a public interest defence [1]? The trial would be a formality and he'd be locked up for 40 years without being able to contribute to any debate.

[1] The espionage act does not allow you to make a public interest defence and makes no distinction between whistle-blowers and spies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

When in recent years so many programmers have had examples made of them, I can't say I have much confidence in the fair treatment of a previously relatively inconsequential man who made a monumental decision on one of the defining ethical dilemmas of our time.

There's a gauntlet of institutional embarrassment that he'd have to run through. I can't blame the guy for staying in Russia.

  We live in a dangerous world.

“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made…And a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

Mass surveillance and government secrecy are one of the greatest threats to this ideal ever to face this country. Can we survive with them? Of course. Life will go on, we'll live in our houses and buy nice things and generally lead comfortable lives. But we'll never live as free persons, and even those of us with the most comfortable lives will constantly be looking over our shoulders, burdened by the feeling that something is very wrong.

So this is what passes for responsibility according to the President's advisors? It might be appropriate to bring this up the next time Obama undermines some reportedly-bad Republican-made policy and the Repbulicans turn around and demand that Obama step down as president. According to Lisa Monaco, it would be irresponsible for Obama to run away from the consequences of his actions by not stepping down in that situation.

It's also very reasonable to suppose, as he did, that going about things in the manner that he did was the only way to achieve his stated mission, since, by definition, what he wanted to publicise was highly classified. The downsides for himself, and to whatever extent for diplomacy and national security, were worth it in his eyes. Thus, the idea that he should have instead "[c]hallenge[d] it, [spoken] out, engage[d] in a constructive act of protest" is facile gibberish, and, as to the idea that he should face the consequences in a trial by a jury of his peers, it would be akin to sheep negotiating with the wolves. What was he going to do, hold up a banner that says "[redacted]"?

By the same token, it's ludicrous to expect the American state to pardon Snowden, with or without a petition. Snowden has irretrievably made himself a sworn enemy of the American national security state. The state could not possibly allow its legitimacy and legal supremacy to be undermined by his actions. His situation is not unlike that of politically persecuted activists elsewhere.

Horseshit. He's been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr spent in jail, totaled over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is facing the same order of magnitude in terms of explicit punishment?

Moreover, when MLK received a sentence of 6 months hard labor following the Greensboro sit-ins, JFK and RFK intervened to get him released early.

"In October 1960 Atlanta student leaders convinced King to participate in a sit-in at Rich’s, a local department store. King and about 300 students were arrested. The students were later released, but King remained in jail while Georgia officials determined whether his sit-in arrest violated parole conditions King had received a month earlier after driving with a suspended license. After being sentenced to six months of hard labor at Georgia State Prison at Reidsville, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy and his campaign manager and brother, Robert Kennedy, helped secure King’s release. Their intervention in the case helped contribute to Kennedy’s narrow victory over Richard Nixon in the presidential election."

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encycloped...

But apparently MLK doesn't know how to do civil disobedience, and the Obama administration would rather identify with his captors than with JFK.

Finally, speaking of "the consequences" as if they're something natural and not something the Obama administration has direct and unilateral control over is disingenuous. If Obama issued a pardon, Snowden will have received all of the punishment the law requires. Snowden is not demanding a pardon - he is facing punishment (albeit not the ridiculously overwrought punishment you had in mind). We are demanding he be pardoned.

Oh the irony. deserves robust debate. Ha. It would all still be a secret if not for Snowden.

I was surprised to see they've answered every outstanding petition today: http://twitter.com/wethepeople

It is easy to blame the the administration for the response. But it is not them it is the way the system is setup.(Well it is them to, and they are legitimately scared)

Just as if Snowden had challenged it (i cite)"Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest" he would just have got fired and ignored(or worse), the people in the government is generally in the same seat.

I think they could have mentioned some numbers of what the NSA actually does stop instead of empty threats of a dangerous world.

So it's an admission that they view unconstitutional surveillance as necessary for security? That's too bad. Because that surveillance is exactly what got "severe consequences" as in being challenged.

Taking classified/secret information to a hostile country is treason. If he had done what Ellsburg did and stayed in the United States and face a jury, I think a strong case could be made for pardoning him or for jury nullification. However, by going to China and Russia (which are actually probably more involved in monitoring and controlling Internet use by their subjects) he committed treason, and I hope he eventually gets handed back to the United States to serve a very long prison sentence.

Coming back or turning himself in won't do anything except allow the US to silence him, send him to jail where he will mysteriously be killed or such.

Like all the men and woman before him who fought authority or the church he would ended up being written in the histories some day as a hero. But will be a long time before there is another time distance for the government to be able to admit that.

Is the White House this much hostile towards Russia?

Besides from Iran or North Korea, I'd never expect diplomats to be as straightforward as in this statement.

LOL. Tell me the last time our Congress have constructively addressed anything...

Ugh. Bunch of assholes we got running this place.