Browse By

Which Presidential Candidate Will Support Edward Snowden?

During this week’s Democratic presidential debate, when asked about Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed widespread unconstitutional spying against the American people by the National Security Agency, Hillary Clinton resorted to the standard talking points used by Washington D.C. power elites. “He stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands,” said Clinton. “I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.”

Even Bernie Sanders wouldn’t let Snowden off the hook. “He did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that,” Sanders said.

Yes, Edward Snowden broke some laws. However, a significant power of the President of the United States, a position to which both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aspire, is to pardon people accused of committing crimes.

Edward Snowden committed his crimes in the service of the American people, to share shocking information about huge federal government abuses against the American people. Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama were willing to tell the truth about the electronic spying against Americans that they had authorized.

Hillary Clinton claimed that Edward Snowden put secret information into “the wrong hands”, a charge that Clinton has a lot of nerve to make, given that she herself has admitted taking top secret government information without authorization and storing it on her own private servers for her personal use, evading standard procedures of supervision. There is, moreover, no actual evidence that Edward Snowden has given any government secrets to foreign governments. “Hillary Clinton is wrong and misinformed,” says Anna Myers, Executive Director of the Government Accountability Project.

Who can Americans who support the restoration of our Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure turn to? Unlike the spineless Democrats on the stage for this week’s debate, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is willing to give Edward Snowden her strong support, and if elected President, will protect him from prosecution. She explains, “I think he has paid more than his due. He performed an incredible service. While he broke a law, technically, he also served a much higher constitutional law which was being broken. I think he should be welcomed home as a hero.”

6 thoughts on “Which Presidential Candidate Will Support Edward Snowden?”

  1. Leroy says:

    In 2000, Nader won 2.7% of the vote, possibly costing Al Gore the presidency.

    Since then no Green Party candidate has won even 1/2 of one percent of the popular vote.

    In 2012, Jill Stein won 36/100ths of one percent of the popular vote.

    I would MUCH rather push support for Bernie Sanders and hope to convince him of the very liberal / progressive need to pardon Snowden… rather than split the vote and elect a Trump or Crux (etcetera).

    There are idealistic situations and then ones where a more realistic position ends to be taken.

    Additionally, the fact is that what was done was a crime. A necessary, civil disobedience crime that REALLY needed to be done. But still a crime. A pardon would be great… but when one steps over a definite line to take such action then one should be prepared to do the time – or retain a status of avoiding extradition. It is part of the martydom.

  2. Bruce Nappi says:

    You brought out and supported a very good point: The President has the power to PARDON criminals. Why should he do it? It’s the point that another comment missed. The structure, content, implementation and enforcement of U.S. LAW are ALL seriously FLAWED. Many laws contradict each other. Others contradict moral principles that a very high majority of people support. The laws are haphazardly and preferentially applied and enforced.

    The flaw in the Snowden case is that the U.S. government is intentionally ignoring and violating a major protection given to citizens by the Constitution. The fact that there is some other law, that protects sensitive government information, does not override the validity of a Constitutional law. So, the Supreme Court should be forced to deal with this directly. In the case of two laws, both claiming to be established to PROTECT public safety, but now observed to conflict, make the court decide which one takes precedence! That is one of the reasons we have courts – to deal with the limitations and flaws of the written law.

    Once this is decided, then the “weaker” law should be AMENDED to state that it is secondary to the more important law. This, of course, would have major repercussions if the law that had to be “amended” was a major protection of the Bill of Rights.

    1. Leroy says:

      Really somewhat confused as to what you are saying and what your point is because you are overly generalizing.

      Being more specific would help a lot.

  3. Leroy says:

    If referencing the First Amendment, numerous Federal Court cases have specified that Freedom of Expression is NOT an “absolute right” (“crying fire in a crowded theater”).

    The First Amendment does NOT negate Federal laws on violating the sanctity of high level security information (now if it is truly super secret squirrel info or not is for the Court to decide).

    It isn’t a matter of treason or not (treason referencing the levying of war or being an accomplice thereof against the United States, but is a violation of the Espionage Act (and other laws relating to sedition).


    ” …designed to give the student and curious minds a broad and knowledgeable insight into the First Amendment, the meaning of free speech, and why despite the protection afforded by the First Amendment, there are still some categories of expression not offered protection under the free speech doctrine. Fraud, defamation, obscenity and divulgence of State secret are among expressions not offered refuge by the First Amendment… carefully selected and reported some decisions of the United States Supreme Court, focusing on the subject of free speech, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause… ”


    Yes, most teens SHOULD know these very important Supreme Court cases (in the immediate case that first one), but unfortunately even most adults don’t know them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!