Want a preview of the exact text the White House will use to not comment?<p><a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-chris-williams" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-commen...</a><p><a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-leonard-peltier" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-commen...</a><p><a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-can’t-comment-marc-emery" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-can’t-comme...</a><p>Though maybe we'll get extra lucky and get a non-form non-response, like Bradley Manning's:<p><a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-commen...</a>
The reason petitions like this are important is that ultimately, the fate of whistleblowers must rest in the hands of the people. The government <i>must</i> prosecute leakers; failure to do so would invite rampant leaking, placing essential secrecy in the hands of every single individual with access to confidential information. The key question about a leak is: does the value of the information being public outweigh the cost to national security? The ultimate arbiter of this question can only be the people. The executive branch is too invested in maintaining security; the judicial branch is charged with enforcing the law, not with making policy judgments; and the legislative branch, while it can be very influential, has (at least in the US) no direct control over the fate of any particular whistleblower.<p>So the only way to keep a whistleblower out of prison has to be by the sheer weight of public opinion. There isn't any other way and there never can be. This is one responsibility we cannot delegate to our elected representatives, because it directly contradicts other responsibilities we have placed on them.<p>So, if you believe, as I do, that we are better off for Snowden's revelations -- that we desperately need to have a national conversation about what our government is doing to protect us, and whether the price of that is worth paying; that the material Snowden has leaked has been essential in bringing that conversation into focus and drawing attention to it; and that the damage to national security is minimal -- then I urge you to sign this petition.
"Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs."<p>Looks completely reasonable to me and hence I just signed the petition.
Does it set a good example to pardon someone who leaked classified information and endangered national security (i.e. treason)? Possibly. I would pardon them only if they had whistleblower status--i.e. the leaked programs were illegal.<p>Morally, perhaps we should wait to see whether the programs are ruled illegal before deciding to ask for a pardon. So far the administration and Congress (two out of three branches) have maintained that they are legal.<p>Politically, the administration would not want to undermine their talking points--that the programs were legal--by giving implicit whistleblower status to the leaker, thereby implying they were illegal after all.
Thank you for posting that. The more refusals the White House is forced to dols out, the more it illustrates what a "dog and pony show" show this administration is. If the petition gets as many as 200,000 or 300,000 signatures which is possible it may signal to other politicians that a storm is brewing. It was like this for Vietnam.
Honest question: why would anyone assume such a petition would have any effect whatsoever? This is the same institution - the state - which has repeatedly and unashamedly told the most blatant lies to further its interest (increasing its power at the expense of the sovereignty of the people). Sure the petition might result in some bleating from POTUS, but does anyone seriously believe this would lead to Snowden being pardoned? The people in power will never countenance letting such a precedent stand. What Snowden did presents an existential threat to the establishment. He's going to be made an example of, regardless of the campaigning of idealists who believe the state can be cajoled into behaving benevolently.
The response is going to look something like "because we don't know the full extent 'related to the NSA surveillance programs,' we cannot make any such promises" mixed in with some reasonable sounding stuff about due process and rule of law.