At the end of the Obama Administration, would he pardon Snowden? - Citizenfour (2014) Discussion

[–] haynese_98 9 years ago

It would open up a can of worms for Obama if he pardoned Snowden. The President has already condoned Snowden under his watch. Obama has also said in the media that Snowden should come home, be a man and face the music. A pardon would send mix messages and people would be very suspicious of Obama and the Democratic party.

Obama would also face the possibility of legal action, Why did he pardon a man who under the president's watch had FEDERAL charges filed against him? The president would risk having to testify in front of a court. This would be a huge embarrassment for the president which would shame the office of the president. Ex-Presidents are always obsessed with their legacy, they would not want anything to tarnish them.

However, I will say one thing about Obama. His true self will be revealed after the election and it comes time for him to pardon people before leaving office. His pardon's will be very, very interesting to say the least.

A couple becomes a couple when there's a house on the horizon

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benjobuff 9 years ago

Obama is releasing TERRORISTS from gitmo and putting them in Iran controlled Yemen. I put nothing past that guy.

reply

[–] waxmask-1 9 years ago

Without fair trial those are innocent men. And the only terrrorists are the US government worldwide.

reply

[–] nevajana 9 years ago

Can someone be pardoned if they weren't convicted? I thought a pardon was for those who were convicted.

reply

[–] palisade-1 9 years ago

Can someone be pardoned if they weren't convicted?

You're right, a pardon applies only to people who have been convicted of a crime (sometimes unjustly or wrongly convicted).However, in actual fact, the term is frequently misused, or misapplied, so that the legal meaning of the term can be ambiguous.

An example is that of Gerald Ford granting a "pardon" to Richard Nixon, after his resignation, but prior to any charges being laid against him.

What would usually apply is the term "amnesty," which means granting immunity from prosecution to a group (usually) who have committed a crime; individuals in the group may or may not have been charged or convicted, but the amnesty allows all involved to come out in the open without fear of legal sanctions. Usually an amnesty is not granted to one person, but there is nothing to prevent this.

Here's the legal definition of amnesty:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=240

and the legal definition of pardon:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1443

You can see that neither term applies exactly to the Snowden case. However, Obama has already insisted he will not be making any deals, and has rejected a petition with about 170 000 signatures requesting a pardon for Snowden.

This article from a few months back suggests that there are some behind-the-scenes negotiations going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/edward-snowden-what-would-happen-if-he-went-home-pardon-or-prison

Edited to fix link

reply

[–] jamotide 8 years ago

Impossible. Obummer has prosecuted whistleblowers more viciously than any other president.

reply

[–] palisade-1 8 years ago

Impossible. Obummer has prosecuted whistleblowers more viciously than any other president.

Exactly. But not only that, he has prosecuted whistleblowers more viciously than all other U.S. presidents in history combined.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] palisade-1 7 years ago

Snowden is only a whistleblower not a crook

LOL, that's a good reason why Obama won't pardon him. Typically departing presidents pardon actual crooks who are their friends or political cronies.

Beyond that, Obama has waged a war on whistleblowers of all kinds, prosecuting more than all the presidents in US history combined.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoSugarAddedGFW 7 years ago

No. All things considered he hurt as well as 'helped others' and everybody knows...

So what has he done? He now cannot come home, ever, he needs to remain relevant (outside the lines of 'free' communications) to stay 'employed' and 'useful' and, most importantly, relevant. He's gotten, most likely, a ton of money for the movie and anything he 'shares' (you, now for the good of the US citizens) to live on. Who is he fooling? While I get it, I don't think it's rocket science. What's 'wrong' was the Second Act based on arrogant greed using a manipulation tool, fear, to get inside our lives. And frankly, outside of breaking laws, it's ALL on the continum of being human. Now if the mining puts an end to lawbreakers, great. As for knowing were I shop, dream, eat, chat, escape, so what?

GFW
who as been an IMDb member for ages

reply