Will Obama Pardon Edward Snowden? Not Bloody Likely!

Neoliberal security fetishists are unlikely to want Edward Snowden pardoned, despite the fact he's performed a public service in exposing surveillance overreach.

Today, with the opening of Oliver Stone's biopic film  'SNOWDEN', props and kudos must go out to The New York Times for its bold editorial calling for Obama to issue an executive pardon.  As the Times puts it, embodying the hopes and desires of civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, Amnesty International and Humans Rights Watch:
------

“Edward J. Snowden, the American who has probably left the biggest mark on public policy debates during the Obama years, is today an outlaw. Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who disclosed to journalists secret documents detailing the United States’ mass surveillance programs, faces potential espionage charges, even though the president has acknowledged the important public debate his revelations provoked.

Mr. Snowden’s whistle-blowing prompted reactions across the government.  Courts found the government wrong to use Section 215 of the Patriot Act to justify mass phone data collection. Congress replaced that law with the USA Freedom Act, improving transparency about government surveillance and limiting government power to collect certain records. The president appointed an independent review board, which produced important reform recommendations.

That’s just in the American government. Newspapers that published Mr. Snowden’s revelations won the Pulitzer Prize. The United Nations issued resolutions on protecting digital privacy and created a mandate to promote the right to privacy. Many technology companies, facing outrage at their apparent complicity in mass surveillance, began providing end-to-end encryption by default. Three years on, the news media still refer to Mr. Snowden and his revelations."
--------------------

This should be a veritable no brainer given it's one case, laced by so much controversy, that it literally calls out for a presidential pardon.  But as the Times also went on to document,  the grievances and retribution mindset of the Neoliberal security statists live on, and they have the memory of a metaphorical elephant.  In Snowden's case, these hard heads (including the two current presidential candidates) focus not on the man's public service but the importance of prosecuting him. Hillary Clinton, who played fast and loose with her emails - putting them on 19 different devices  - had the audacity to say Snowden "needed to face the music". This despite the fact the FBI and Justice Dept. let her off with a slap on the wrist. As for Trump,  this is a guy who - despite receiving a confidential briefing 2 weeks ago -blabbed its content to the frickin media.  All this, even - as the Times observed how  Eric Holder struck  a more measured tone in May, upon leaving office as Mr. Obama’s attorney general. He even acknowledged Snowden had performed a "public service'.

What about Barack Obama? Can he strike a similar tone to Mr. Holder's?  Alas, the man who eight years ago defined "hope and change" has now devolved (evolved?)  to become basically a keeper of the Neoliberal state establishment - and is unlikely to be so gracious.  Meanwhile on Wednesday Snowden thanked supporters who launched a campaign for his pardon and affirmed that for the sake of democracy, future whistleblowers must not be silenced.

Again, this ought to be a no-brainer but to the Neoliberal state and its gate keepers, information keepers, it bears the mark of a treasonous contempt.  The "contempt"  of a genuine citizen who demands transparency from his government and doesn't seek to keep its people in the dark- or to use various rationalizations to spy and catalog their every move. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/between-skeleton-key-and-cog-how-close.html


Speaking by video link from Moscow, where he has been in exile since 2013, Snowden said that while the Founding Fathers created checks and balances to guard against government abuses, “whistleblowers, acting in the public interest, often at great risk to themselves, are another check on those abuses of power, especially through their collaboration with journalists.”


Snowden addresses supporters at video conference.

He said whistleblowing “is democracy’s safeguard of last resort, the one on which we rely when all other checks and balances have failed and the public has no idea what’s going on behind closed doors.”

The 33-year-old addressed a New York City news conference where advocates from the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International announced an online petition drive to urge President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden before he leaves office. The supporters called Snowden a hero for exposing the extent of government surveillance by giving thousands of classified documents to journalists. The documents disclosed the extent of unconstitutional mass surveillance conducted without adherence to the 4th amendment's demand for individual warrants.

Meanwhile, Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi has insisted:

"It is important to remember Mr. Snowden is not a whistleblower. He is accused of leaking classified information, and his actions have inflicted serious harm on our national security."

But, truly, if a citizen - even under contract with the NSA-  reveals the government has committed serious constitutional violations (in this case of the Fourth Amendment) clearly that must be whistle blowing and the violation itself must trump in importance the means used to expose it. Indeed, our Constitution's Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Clearly showing that only individual warrants are acceptable and one cannot have mass warrants issued out of laziness, disrespect for the Constitution or mere expedience and efficiency provided by technology. Moreover, Snowden was ultimately vindicated when a  300-page report     was released last year by a commission appointed by Obama himself .

The very issuance of that report by an Obama-appointed commission, I would argue, shows unimpeachably the whistle blower status of Snowden.

As for Raimondi's claim of "harm to our national security", I would argue that emerged not with the Snowden disclosures but with the egregious use of the Stuxnet computer worm over a year earlier to create havoc with Iran's centrifuges - used in its nuclear program.  Sean McGurk - former head of cyber defense at The Department of Homeland Security, in charge of protecting critical infrastructure in the U.S.  interviewed on a March 4, 2012 '60 Minutes' pointedly remarked:

"You can download the actual source code of Stuxnet now and you can repurpose it and repackage it and then, you know, point it back towards wherever it came from."

And that has undoubtedly been done, as evidenced in the recent DNC hacks as well as others, e.g. of Colin Powell, attributed to "Russians" - but in any case with the aid of a repurposed and redirected Stuxnet code.

Edward Snowden was not responsible for wreaking any of the havoc later caused by Stuxnet's repurposing, and hence is not culpable for any measurable national security harm. The only "harm" was to programs (e.g. PRISM, MUSCULAR, XKeyscore) that never should have been implemented to  begin with, given they trampled on 4th amendment rights.

These facts also should be processed by the misnamed House Intelligence Committee - dominated by fascist Reeptard lackeys-  which sent a strong letter to Obama insisting he not pardon Snowden. But they approved wholeheartedly when Bush Jr. let Luis Posada Carriles have safe haven in Miami ten years ago. Recall Posada Carriles, eg.

was the Venezuelan terrorist who - along with Orlando Bosch - engineered the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 just off Barbados' SW coast on October 6, 1976, killing all 73 innocents aboard, in the worst plane terror act before 9/11.

Posada is still wanted by VZ authorities for his role, as he was ten years ago, when Bush Jr. let him live freely in Miami's "Little Havana"  as the Reepo House Reeptards cheered. So, I'd say they've lost all credibility over any security matters now.

Speaking more cogently after the Snowden video conference was ACLU Executive Directot Anthony Romero, in whose words:

“Cases like Edward Snowden’s are precisely why the presidential pardon power exists, There is widespread consensus that Edward Snowden’s actions catalyzed an unprecedented debate about the proper limits of government surveillance, and his actions resulted in widespread reforms both in law and in technology that protect Americans and individuals across the globe.”

If George Bush Sr. could pardon a terrorist like Orlando Bosch, responsible for planning the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976 - killing all 73 on board- then certainly the least Obama could do is commute the sentence of a man who followed his conscience and constitutional law with respect for the highest moral imperatives.  The question then becomes  whether Obama has the cojones to do it and transcend his fear of wingnut narratives, e.g.  "extending his apology  terror tour" .  He'd also have to dismiss the concerns of dim-witted advisors whispering in his ear about being seen as "weak on national security".  In addition, what would Hillary and her campaign  think if he did it? This,  given she wants Snowden to "face the music" - never mind she won't for her own security failures with her personal email server.

Those imperatives have also made nations and peoples more aware of their rights and the threat of surveillance in violating them. As Naureen Shah, Amnesty International's Director of Human Rights for the U.S. put it:

"I think it's no exaggeration to say this man has changed the world"

Indeed, and for the time being - more people are freer in their web surfing, emailing, Google searching  than they had been before Snowden.  TO lend your voice in support, go to:

www.pardonsnowden.org


See also:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/would-obama-pardon-edward-snowden/500105/

Advances on Many Fronts Following Passage of Colorado's MJ Law

Rep. Diana Degette has advanced the ‘Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act’ to exempt states like Colorado and Washington from the Federal Controlled Substances Act provision governing marijuana

Multiple advances are being made following the passage of Colorado's Amendment 64 on November 6th, allowing for the recreational use of marijuana (1 oz or under) for those 21 years or older. While the initial implementation phase is still about 30 days from now, legal progress is being made as lawmakers, DAs, prosecutors grasp that the PEOPLE have spoken and with a 55%-45%  clarity FOR recreational use and state regulated retail outlets.

Among the more noteworthy initiatives with possible national implications is U.S. Rep. Diana Degette's bipartisan legislation, introduced on Friday which would ensure the marijuana-legalization passing states are not overrun by federal interlopers seeking to overturn the laws ('DeGette Pushes Pot Bill', The Denver Post', Nov. 17, p. 4A). As Ms. Degette put it:

"My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens."

Bingo! And I imagine this savvy lawmaker also grasps that any such draconian strategies will not be lost on the many youth who voted for the Amendment - as well as Obama and the Dems! 

Degette's legislation is coined 'The Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act'. 

Never mind the 'States' Rights' misnomer (states actually have prerogatives, not rights) the bill seeks to exempt states that have legalized pot from the marijuana provisions of the Federal Controlled Substances Act.  Interestingly, even one of the most conservative Republicans in Colorado, Rep. Mike Coffman, now stands behind the act where he once opposed it (prior to the election). As he noted (ibid.):

"I strongly opposed the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I feel obliged to support this legislation."

All very noble and sincere-sounding, but I suspect a more powerful underlying reason is he saw the pro-initiative votes at 55% and realized they were more than most congressional reps up for re-election received, on either side of the aisle. Hence, those who joust against the implementation of the initiative are liable to be punished later - with their parties - at the polls!

Meanwhile, Degette's proposed legislation comes on the same day a handful of members from the state's congressional delegation were part of a coalition of lawmakers who sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to respect the new voter-approved laws in Colorado and Washington. In the letter, as the Post noted, all the lawmkers wrote that:

"it would be a mistake for the federal government to 'focus enforcement action on individuals whose actions are in compliance with state law".


Indeed. Of course, the subtext to that is Mr. Holder and his DOJ also showing they respect the rights of the voters proper.

As The Denver Post noted in its editorial 2 days ago, contrary to Gov. Hickenlooper's jokey take after 64's passage ("Let's not all go for the goldfish and cheetos now!") the citizens who voted for 64 were not loopy stoners, but stone-cold sober citizens who understood the prosecution of petty drug possession is a waste of resources, and additionally only adds terrible costs to not only enforcement but incarceration. Beyond that, it's hypocritical given MJ has not caused ONE single death while alcohol use in the state has caused hundreds of DUI incidents, more than half with fatalities. Beyond that, we all recognized that the legalized product in addition to the medical MJ dispensaries, provides badly needed revenues to the tune of over $170m a year.

Interestingly, 'Hick' (who has interests in a brew co.) wrote a letter to AG Holder, co-signed with Colorado AG John Suthers, not defending the voters' will like Diana Degette, but opting for a craven pitch that "emphasized punitive actions the feds could take like 'blocking the implementation of Amendment 64' and 'prosecuting growth and retail operations'" ('Kowtowing to Federal Authority', Vince Carroll in The Denver Post, today, p. 3D). Anyone wanna bet that Hick's tenure may not be overly long if he goes along with such a cowardly tack?

Finally, Degette's and Colorado lawmakers move comes two days after Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett made headlines when he announced his office "will dismiss any pending cases that deal with less than an ounce of marijuana. " (Denver Post, Nov. 16, 'Limits on Pot Prosecution', page 4A)  This was just before Denver prosecutors vowed to no longer charge those 21 and older for carrying less than an ounce of mairjuana.

Of course, the state still has its hardasses (as opposed to known conflict-of-interest clowns)  who will wait until the last minute and the last dog is hung to get off their keysters. One notable case is Weld County DA Ken Buck who said in a statement Thursday that his office has an obligation "to prosecute offenses that were crimes at the time they occurred". Recall this is the same character who ran for a Senate seat in '10 and insisted his same office would only prosecute rape cases if it could be shown they were "forcible rape". Hmmm.....anybody wondering why he lost?

Despite the usual state knuckledraggers like Buck,  progress is being made, and hopefully, once the law is fully implemented it will be seen that what has transpired was true citizen-mediated democracy in action. If our own democratic values and aspiration for other nations mean anything, this new law ought to stand!

Feds Need to Back Off on Colorado's (MJ) Amendment 64

On November 6th, Colorado voters will not only be casting their ballots for the next President of the United States, but also on Amendment 64, for the legalization of marijuana. Colorado could, in fact, be one of three states (the others Washingon and Oregon) to enable legalization of pot.

Sadly, the appearance of the ballot and its eventual citizen choice is being muddied by two factors: one the threat of ex post facto federal intervention, and the other by specious arguments concerning the 'threat to children". Both need to be considered, and let me take the last one first.  Perhaps no one lately has done a better job of disposing of it than one Denver Post letter writer two days ago:

"“There are many freedoms adults often enjoy that are illegal for kids, including gambling, drinking, smoking, investing, driving, getting piercings and tattoos, getting married, staying out all night, going to many concerts, working a double shift, etc. Granted, many of these freedoms could be considered bad for adults, too, but the “bad for kids” trope is nothing more than a cudgel designed to stifle honest debate. An unregulated black market is most assuredly more harmful to kids than a regulated honest market, and Colorado enjoys many economic advantages from the tax revenue these freedoms bring when adults enjoy them responsibly. And rest assured, adults most certainly do enjoy them.


Intelligent, evidence-based arguments against passing Amendment 64 are hard to find, so these folks fall back to the emotionally charged, false argument that it’s “bad for kids.”

This letter nails it spot-on since the "kid danger" argument, which has often been resurrected lately, relies on impairing intellectual judgment by appeal to emotionalism and hysteria.

The federal threat is also one that must be targeted given the adverse effects in previous state ballots. The classic example was when California voters also considered marijuana legalization in 2010 but went down to defeat after Attorney General Eric Holder (parents originally from Barbados, where I lived for 20 years) warned that the federal government "would not look the other way" i.e. in allowing a state market in defiance of a federal drug law. He also vowed to "vigorously enforce" marijuana prohibition.

One can examine this from many aspects, and though I happen to like Eric Holder, I believe he's what the Bajans call "wrong and strong". I also believe this federal stance is not adopted or sustained out of any morality or truly valid legal consideration or justifications, but merely to protect Big PhRmA and the Alcoholic beverages industries. (Btw this corporate protection didn't start on the Obama Adminstration's watch).

Imagine how the sales of alcoholic beverages, including wine and beer would crater if pot were legalized in even one state. Imagine how Big PhRmA's strangle hold on drugs would crumble if patients had a lot of latitude in selecting MJ for their ills instead of high priced prescription meds!

But let's get to the more fundamental issue of citizen rights. While some nabobs confront the Feds on the basis of "State's rights" this is actually incorrect.  As Prof. Garry Wills has noted in his landmark book, A Necessary Evil-A History Of American Distrust Of Government, Simon & Schuster, 1999, the debasement of discussion of rights has been enabled by consistent disparagement and ignorance in respect of the notions of rights - particularly 'State's Rights'- and the dismissal of the unenumerated rights of citizens under the Ninth Amendment.


As Wills observes (p. 109):

"The Ninth Amendment talks of 'rights enumerated' and says 'the people' retain unenumerated ones. The rights in the Ninth are not the rights of the state, which can- strictly speaking - have no rights."

Wills goes on (ibid.):

""Governments have prerogatives, people have rights - so Hamilton speaks of 'abridgments of prerogative' in the state to protect rights of citizens. What the Ninth says is that the rights enumerated as protected by The Constitution do not exhaust all rights inherent in a people. The states can retain powers, though not rights."
"So 'state's rights' is something of a misnomer, no matter how common its use. The states have no natural rights. Their powers are artificial not natural - since they are things made by contract. The equation "states are to the federal government as people are to the states" mixes apples and oranges. Citizens alone have rights, in relation to both the states and the federal government."

The last sentence is especially important, after settling the issue that states have no natural rights, only artificial powers. But by extension, the federal government as an entity has no natural rights either, only powers, made by contract. That contract, or those contracts CAN be broken if the citizen or citizens exercise their natural rights to do so! Such is the case with Amendment 64, or indeed any of the other state amendments which - through the action of citizen NATURAL rights - confer a benefit (perceived so to those citizens not a Nanny government) that it is legal within that state. Obviously then, the rights can only apply to that state.

If then a Colorado citizen (say having approved Amendment 64) were to go elsewhere and try to exercise MJ use in a non-complying state he would be subject to the full weight of the federal law. But not in his own state. Thus, if the federal government or any of its agencies seeks to intrude on that citizen exercise, once citizens have passed the law for their state, then it is effectively seeking to quash citizen natural rights using federal powers. This is no longer a democracy but ....I don't know what....maybe again a Corporatocracy if the effect is ultimately to protect corporate interests.

The fact is that alcohol is far more deadly and causes vastly more in the way of deaths (i.e. DUI manslaughters, accidents), hardship and addicton than MJ. It is time the feds realize that and stay out of these state ballot measures!