[ol]
[li]Snowden hasn’t been indicted on any charges[/li][li]This amnesty is being mooted by the guy who is apparently the top candidate for the soon-to-be vacant job of (civilian) Deputy Director of the NSA - so it’s basically the NSA unofficially running an idea up the flag pole[/li][/ol]
It seems to me the state has to cut its losses on this; you have a guy who pretty much the entire non-US world sees as a hero hold up in Russia - Russia, for goodness sake - unable to return to the land of the free for fear of prosecution.
At the same time, it looks like the President will be making changes based on Snowden’s steady trickle of disclosures, of which we’re about 1% done: effectively, Snowden is more than informing Presidential policy at this point.
It seems what Snowden has done is being implicitly endorsed by the Head of State? Or not - how do you read this slightly surreal situation?
No, of course not. This is a decision that obviously only the President could make, and only a fool would offer Snowden amnesty because: 1) it will serve as a further encouragement for people to break the law; 2) it is fully inconsistent with the well-justified prosecution of Pvt. Manning; and 3) there is zero assurance that Snowden returning some electronic media will actually contain the damage from his spying.
You’ve got one guy floating this idea and any number of people who actually can make the decision saying “no”. This is partly sensationalist journalism and partly your reading waaaaay too much into the article.
There is a huge difference between one senior policy maker in government thinking about proposals that neither he nor his agency has any power to effectuate, and the same matter being formally proposed by the agency for consideration by the whole government.
Once again, typical crappy Guardian reporting… no, scratch that: I maintain that most British newspapers are ridiculously poor at accurate reporting, since accuracy is constantly being traded off for attention-grabbing headlines. Thank god for the British press, as they make American journalists look thoughtful, restrained, and statesman-like.
To be blunt about it, what he did is currently not a death penalty crime - so there should be no country not willing to let us extradite him. [One of the main reasons not to extradite is generally being dragged back to the US to be put to death.]
Because there really can not be an innocent plea - he swiped and released the info, he admits he did it, it happened, nobody else can be shoved in as the person who really did it. Just slap his ass in a plane in handcuffs and let us get over it.:rolleyes:
We’re curently in a surreal world where some senior official with the NSA is talking about an annesty for someone not charged with any crime and offering an amnesty he isn’t in a position to offer. Meanwhile, the President appoints a committee to address the concerns raised by the enemy of the state and while Mr/iss Manning serves 35 years for doing about the same.
So, all good. It’s just a shame Peter Sellers died.
He’s off the reservation and will be slapped down. People lose message discipline all the time.
It’s a trial balloon. As the revelations about the NSA grow, Snowden is becoming somewhat of a hero around the globe. For bad or good, his Q-rating is enormously positive overseas and with some segments of the US population. If we assume that NOTHING is going to prevent the rest of the info from coming out, then it might be best to try to make a positive spin by working with Snowden somehow. If it receives positive reviews it goes from ‘one guy’ saying it to ‘the government is now willing to’.
But yea, no way in hell they’d offer him amnesty. Even in the unlikely event the gov’t decided they needed to cut a deal to prevent further disclosures, they’d offer a plea deal that would at least leave intact the principle that people violating security clearances will be prosecuted.
:rolleyes: indeed. You seem to not have much of a clue.
First of all America would not extradite but would ask for extradition
Second, there is no extradition treaty with Russia so Russia would be under no obligation at all.
Third, even if there were an extradition treaty with Russia it would almost certainly not include political crimes.
Fourth, even if by some chance the treaty included the crime being charged the courts of the country would have to approve extradition.
Fifth, even if the courts approved it then the executive has the last word to approve or deny.
Sixth, what would be the odds that America would extradite to Russia or to China someone who had done the same thing thing to one of those countries? Exactly, zero chance. They would be hailed as heroes.
There are also a number of people Russia wanted the U.S. to extradite to them–but the U.S. refused. See for example:
3 Extradition Cases That Help Explain U.S.-Russia Relations
