So...I realize there's a huge debate on whether or not to give Snowden a deal, or clemency, or a light sentence. I find this discussion really dull and beside the point and don't want to get into its merits now.
That's because it's really not about itself or fact-finding, but about domestic politics, and which faction, hard left, left, progressive, Democratic, libertarian, conservative, etc. gets to "win" on how to do national security -- and who, elected governments or unelected anarchists, gets to encrypt, and encrypt absolutely. Those are the real issues. So I'd rather have this debate in a more pure and essential form.
I will mention -- to try to make my larger points of the conceptual groundwork that needs to be done first -- that one of the particularly DISHONEST ways that this debate on Snowden's clemency is being waged is not surprisingly done by Freedom of the Press Foundation-- which, in case you have the short memory of a lot of reporters is the very same outfit that is raising money for Snowden -- duh.
FPF is a creature of Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose sticker is on Ed's laptop and who have litigated against the NSA for years on metadata and other issues. Their leadership in the form of John Perry Barlow, John Gillmore and others formed the FPF specifically to raise money for the avatars of their anarchist movement like Assange, Manning and Snowden. Snowden is funded under the WikiLeaks account explicitly. Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras are on the board thereby giving money to their source and possibly themselves, but that's legal; people forget that the IRS doesn't care that you do things that might seem unethical in a perfect world, they just care that you report on it publicly.
Now --hardly a source on which to comment on this credibly, then, Trevor Timm insists that the rightwingers "stop lying" by claiming that Snowden could come home and face trial, and use that trial to explicate his views. Certainly Paul Carr -- no conservative he, but just a libertarian like Glenn Greenwald, if not a technocommunist) -- thinks Snowden can do this.
Indeed, this Pando Daily tech-thug who heckled me and smeared me who is really for Snowden despite simply not liking his ego-driven personality, and has even come up with a smarmy little word for Snowden -- "whistle blowhard" -- as if we're "done" by merely ridiculing Snowden's vanity -- but then we should all just fall into step with Silicon Valley and embrace him and his anarchist plan for American security as inevitable, trumpeting Schumpeter. Creative destruction and all that.
Trevor, a lawyer skilled at law-faring (using law to wage ideological warfare), is to wring tears and discredit liberals and conservatives who don't share his radical views by only focusing on past "whistleblower" judgements that may or may not apply to Snowden's case, even given our precedent system, that deal with whether or not Snowden gets to preach to a jury about how he thinks his acts aren't crimes because of some higher law -- and of course, high and lonely destiny that only he enjoys.
But that narrow question is SEPARATE from the issue of whether Snowy gets to describe acts of the government that he thinks are unlawful. See, that's the difference -- trying to exonerate yourself by saying that what you did wasn't really illegal, versus describing what you think was a crime, and getting a hearing for that.
Now, I get it that the cases Trevor has cherry-picked here seem to make his case that you can't do this in court, but I really, really want a second opinion here, given how BIASED young Trevor is. I once cornered him after a big hagiographic meeting at Fordham Law School on Aaron Swartz and tried to explain the actual violations of the CFAA that Swartz really had committed which were already on the record and to question why we had to accept the guerilla manifesto approach and copyleftism as our "Internet freedom" foundation. Trevor was pleasant and cordial enough, but he basically just parroted the EFF line and blew me off. He's not good at answering hard questions, he just knows his own script and finds ever more charming ways to say it, but it's not hugely bright stuff. Trevor at that time was at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and now he's migrated over to FPF, surprise, surprise.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what happened to John Kiriakou or Thomas Drake, as relevant as it may seem to lawfarers. If Congressman Schumer wants, he can convene hearings and subpoena Snowden to testify. That's not a proceeding in a court of law, it's a hearing. In fact, maybe that's the thing to do, issue it -- which costs them nothing -- and see where it goes. Perhaps there's some precedent that a sealed indictment cancels out a subpoena to Congress, i.e. a criminal suspect has to be dealt with by the judicial system, not the legislative system, and there can't be any cross-branching, but obviously Snowden is a big and special case, and you can look into this.
There's nothing to stop hearings from being had with this 29-year-old hacker Obama wouldn't scramble planes for, if he is willingto testify. In fact, maybe he has to be brought in handcuffs? Or promised Monica Lewinsky like immunity from prosecution? Let lawyers figure it out.
My point here is that I smell a rat here with Trevor playing victimology, trying to make it seem like his group's grantee/client is going to be muffled and can't have his lovely day in court. Um, it's not as if Snowy hasn't had PLENTY of opportunities to make his message heard, including even special Christmas messages for the kids.
I could point out that Trevor is being sly there mentioning that "Manning couldn't speak until sentencing". Well, yeah, that's how it works when you steal the classified documents of the People of the United States. But he got to make his Last Word and lay out his cause and reasons and beliefs after sentencing, and you have to be honest what you are REALLY after here, guys -- an exposition of the cause, a day in court, an argumentation -- or impunity?
Sounds like you really want impunity.
No sale.
Recent Comments