Eric Holder 'Would Engage In Conversation' With Edward Snowden

[WillyT]

Eric Holder 'Would Engage In Conversation' With Edward Snowden
The Huffington Post | By Matt Sledge
Posted: 01/23/2014 3:12 pm EST

<snip>

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he would "engage in conversation" with National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden in search of some sort of resolution for his case. But he stopped short of considering clemency, telling MSNBC that "would be going too far."

Holder's carefully phrased remarks come after both the New York Times and The Guardian published editorials in favor of granting Snowden clemency from the Espionage Act charges the Justice Department laid against him following Snowden's revelations last June about the NSA's widespread surveillance programs. Some members of Congress -- mostly liberal Democrats -- have also said they would welcome a deal.

But Holder also rejected the notion that Snowden is a whistleblower, stating "I prefer the term defendant. That's the most apt title."

President Barack Obama offered his own comments toward Snowden in a widely publicized speech announcing NSA reforms last Friday, in which Obama criticized the "sensational" way in which the former contractor disclosed classified information. Obama said he was "not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or motivations," but added that the nation’s defense "depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets."

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/eric-holder-edward-snowden_n_4653814.html

[1000words]

1. Snowden is laughing at you, Mr. Holder.

Squirm.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. And of course if Holder said he wouldn't engage in conversation, he would be attacked. nt

[Blue_Tires]

2. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was revealed that

the Justice Dept. has been trying to broker a deal behind the scenes or through proxy...

[Luminous Animal]

4. The door just opened the tiniest bit.

[Adrahil]

5. I'm okay with a conversation... but no clemency.

For whatever good Snowden did, he also revealed information that he shouldn't have revealed. He lied and betrayed his oath in getting a security clearance with the objective of betraying that oath. He now serves the propaganda interests of Vladimir Putin and his Russian kleptocracy.

I'd AT LEAST like to hear him acknowledge those things and be willing to face up to them. I will not hold me breath, and hope he enjoys his time in Mother Russia.

[RC]

6. Edward Snowden honored his oath to up hold the Constitution.

He did that when he exposed the wholesale criminal and unconstitutional activity in a government agency. An agency that is still operating with impunity, well outside the scope of its mandates.
The more that comes out about the NSA, the more obvious it is, the NSA is being operated in an illegal manner, with its collection of data on American citizens, in violation of the 4th Amendment, as a matter of course.

[Adrahil]

7. Not really.... he abandoned the Constitutional course and simply decided on his own what to release.

And some of it was information that SHOULD have legitimately classified, IMO. For example, our surveillance of other nations. He may not have agreed with it, but it was CERTAINLY Constitutional.

I detest the idea that it's OK to commit crimes so long as your motivations are pure. And I REALLY don't like the idea that doing some things that are clearly wrong (at least in my eyes) is somehow justified since he did some thing that folks could argue was "good."

The ends do not justify the means.

I agree with AG Holder's comments today. I think he was on target.

[RC]

9. And just what has our our government done to fix things, or even to admit the NSA is out of control?

Not a whole lot. It is business as usual for the NSA, except for the pressure other countries are bringing against the United States by not buying our hardware and software, cloud services, because of now known or suspected back doors. This has, even at this early point, cost US business billions so far. The trust level of this country is plummeting as other, more trust worthy countries gear up to take up the slack where we used to be the world leader.
We did it to ourselves. All Snowden did was to expose what the criminals were doing in our name.

[Adrahil]

14. really, that's ALL he did?

Not really. He also exposed perfectly legitimate foreign intelligence operations and even offered more help for foreign powers in exchange for asylum.

Maybe you consider that noble. I understand that viewpoint, but disagree with it.

[RC]

15. The NSA lumped it all in together, using double speak, innuendo and outright lies to cover up spying

on people they had no right to spy on.
Namely American Citizens in this country.

What part of the 4th Amendment do you have a problem with? Why was the NSA spying on Heads of State that were supposedly our friends and working with us in th espy game? Germany is the most well known. If they had stuck to spying on legitimate targets, that would be one thing. But they did not. They spied on everyone, as if everyone were the enemy, including you and me. And that is OK with you? It is not OK with me.

[davidn3600]

11. There is no constitutional course...

Look at the attitude that Feinstein has. She thinks what the NSA is doing is perfectly fine.

What did you want Snowden to do to get this out to the American people?

[Adrahil]

12. OK...

...

First, I don;t like the whole "I'll take this oath knowing I intend to violate it" stuff.

Second, he sucked up TONS of info that has NOTHING TO DO with this. How do you justify putting that out in the wild, it's protection at his sole discretion

Lastly, as I said, I see lots of justification for his crime because people like what he did. So, what the point of law at all? Basically, I guess we should just have juries decide how they feel about cases, rather than refer to an actual law, right?

Snowden released information that had NOTHING TO DO with domestic spying. Are you saying he gets a walk for that?

[WillyT]

17. First... He Didn't Take The Oath KNOWING He INTENDED To Violate It...

He joined the military because of 9-11, broke both legs, and ended up working for the CIA, and then the NSA. It was only AFTER he saw what he thought were clearly illegal/unconstitutional activities did he decide to do what he did.

And:

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

Link: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

[Adrahil]

19. When he went to work for Booz, he had to get a new clearance, as I understand it.

When you get a clearance, you have to take an oath to protect the information.

This isn't about following orders. He took the job at Booz with the specific intent of stealing information.

And you didn't address my main heartburn... the fact that he stole everything he could, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with domestic spying. And he has released information that has nothing to do with domestic spying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. So, if he's not going to offer clemency, what's going to offer? A friendly smile and a cupcake?

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of
tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of
tyranny a good conscience."

~Albert Camus

[Adrahil]

13. I'd be OK with a plea deal.

I'd even be OK with a plea deal that has no jail time IF he turns over the rest of the information and agrees to be thoroughly debriefed on techniques.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The spies at the NSA should be the ones looking for clemency.

But, they're too busy looking at us.

[WillyT]

10. MORE HERE:

Link: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/23/22417513-holder-clemency-for-snowden-too-far-but-open-to-resolution?lite

[WillyT]

18. Kickety !!!