This argument among the three proffered by law professor Jonathan Turley for a presidential pardon of Edward Snowden seems, at first blush, the most logical--until one extends it by even the shortest step:
[W]hen the NSA program was raised in public, National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared before Congress and lied about the program ... a crime for which he could be prosecuted.
But instead of firing Clapper and calling for his arrest, Obama asked him to participate on a task force to review the program.
[Snowden] certainly deserves the same consideration in disclosing abuses that Obama officials received in concealing them from the public.
So if I were guilty of some massive financial "irregularity"--as the Rolex-wearers who engage in such criminality love to euphemize it--would Turley argue that I should be pardoned because scores of depraved Wall Streeters were never indicted?
What's more, I recall Turley arguing during the unpleasantness of the late 1990s that President Clinton deserved impeachment because of his lie under oath about sex--an exceptionally fastidious legal principle which could potentially make high criminals or misdemeaning louts of a good half of America's adult population. Did the ubiquity of Clinton's offense mitigate Turley's opinion? Nope, not one whit.
Nonetheless, in a more perfect world the fairness of Turley's argument about a pardon for Snowden may be conceded. It won't happen, but that's not to deny the simplicity of fair-is-fair; that if Clapper can lie with impunity to Congress, then Snowden can disclose to the public with same. But until that more perfect world evolves, Turley is only arguing a legal utopia.
Were I the president, I'd pardon Snowden just to piss off Congress' national security hawks, most of whom enjoy throwing billions at spookology while cutting food stamps for needy mothers. Fuck 'em.
Now that's a political fair-is-fair approach for you, and among the chief arguments as to why it's a good thing I'm not the president.
So let us discuss the nature of Clapper's supposed lies before congress. An analogy seems appropriate. If a fisherman were to go out after tuna but incidentally caught a porpoise would justice demand that he be prosecuted for fishing for porpoise illegally? There is something called by-catch and no, we don't prosecute fisherman for that. Because that would be stupid and all fisherman would be criminals.
Asked by congress whether the NSA was actively intercepting the communications of Americans he answered no. Yet very act of determining whether or not a communication originates in the US is proscribed and the nature of modern communications makes it impossible for them not to have a by catch of communications of Americans originating in the US. And they did. Not millions of them. Tens of thousands. And it also became evident due to Snowden's revelations that they also had protocols to sequester and delete such communications once identified.
So no, Clapper doesn't deserve to be put on trial. He answered appropriately in my opinion and attempts to criminalize him are foolish. The men who should have known better than to ask him such a stupid question knowing what they should have known deserve it more than he.
Needless to say, I think little of this extremely foolish effort by the left to convince young voters that their government consists mostly of evil minions out to destroy every bit of privacy or freedom. None of what Snowden released reveals anything like that. All that was achieved is to force politicians to assume grandstanding postures of being guardians against their own evil government. They didn't have enough worrying about Fast And Furious, or Benghazi or any of the other phony scandals. They had to create their own. It was stupid.
Posted by: Peter G | December 27, 2013 at 09:25 AM
Agreed, Peter; but by now it is firmly entrenched in NSA lore that the agency is listening in to EVERYTHING and that Clapper deliberately and with malice aforethought lied under oath to cover it up. At the very least, all the "Obama same as/worse than Bush!" crowd eat it up with a serving spoon.
Posted by: Janicket | December 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM
It's also accepted fact that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. A lie of the first order, but one believed by a lot of very intelligent people.
And I still knock the lie down as much a I can whenever I run across it because that is what a lie deserves.
Posted by: Chris Andersen | December 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Peter G-- "... I think little of this extremely foolish effort by the left to convince young voters that their government consists mostly of evil minions out to destroy every bit of privacy or freedom."
I agree, Peter! And I fear that this continuing crusade to tie the administration to these phony NSA "crimes" is going to lead to the defeat of Democrats and the election of Republicans to Congress and other public offices, and the nation will suffer as a result! Snowden is a criminal, and I regret to say that you are still on the wrong side of this issue, PM.
Posted by: Ansel M. | December 27, 2013 at 07:15 PM